论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较分析微生物分析仪法与常规纸片扩散法在细菌耐药表型阳性检测中的应用效果。方法:收集肺炎克雷伯杆菌、大肠杆菌、金黄色葡萄球菌各100株,均由周口市中心医院细菌室提供,收集时间为2015年10月至2016年10月。对所有细菌的耐药表型分别实施微生物分析仪法与常规纸片扩散法检测,统计两种方法的超广谱β-内酰胺酶、耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)、红霉素耐药克林霉素诱导实验阳性检出率并进行比较。结果:常规纸片扩散法与微生物分析仪法进行细菌耐药表型检测,在超广谱β-内酰胺酶、MRSA、红霉素耐药克林霉素诱导实验阳性检出率方面,两种方法的阳性检出率分别为71.00%、59.00%、47.00%以及72.00%、60.00%、48.00%,经比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:细菌耐药表型检测过程中,实施微生物分析仪法与常规纸片扩散法均能获得理想的效果。
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the application effect of microbial analyzer method and conventional disk diffusion method in the positive detection of bacterial resistance phenotype. Methods: 100 strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus were collected, all of which were provided by the bacteria room of Zhoukou Central Hospital for collection from October 2015 to October 2016. The resistant phenotypes of all bacteria were detected by Microbial Analyzer and conventional disk diffusion method, respectively. The two methods were extended spectrum of β-lactamase, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), erythromycin Superoxidants resistant clindamycin induction test positive detection rate and compared. Results: The bacterial resistance phenotypes were detected by conventional disk diffusion method and microbiological analyzer. In terms of the positive detection rate of extended-spectrum β-lactamase, MRSA and erythromycin-resistant clindamycin, two The positive detection rates of the methods were 71.00%, 59.00%, 47.00% and 72.00%, 60.00% and 48.00%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two methods (P> 0.05). Conclusion: In the process of bacterial resistance phenotype detection, both the microbiological analyzer method and conventional disk diffusion method can achieve the desired results.