Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on April 21, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
53/6/1010    most recent
dkh229v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heginbothom, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heginbothom, M. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2004) 53, 1010-1017
© 2004 The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Laboratory testing policies and their effects on routine surveillance of community antimicrobial resistance

Margaret L. Heginbothom1, J. T. Magee1, Joanna L. Bell1, F. D. J. Dunstan2, A. J. Howard1, Sharon L. Hillier2, S. R. Palmer2 and B. W. Mason1,* on behalf of the Welsh Antibiotic Study Group§

1 National Public Health Service for Wales, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff CF14 3QX; 2 Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public Health, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK

Received 2 October 2003; returned 8 December 2003; revised 7 March 2004; accepted 9 March 2004

Objective: To investigate the effects of laboratory testing policies, particularly selective testing, rule-based reporting and isolate identification, on estimates of community antimicrobial resistance.

Materials and methods: Antibiotic resistance estimates were analysed from an all-Wales dataset for approximately 300 000 community isolates of common pathogens.

Results: Selective testing policies were often associated with markedly increased resistance, particularly for second-line testing. Site-specific testing tended to yield variant resistance estimates for eye and ear isolates. Estimates from rule-based reporting deviated markedly from test-result-based reporting. Urinary isolates reported as Escherichia coli showed greater susceptibility than those reported as undifferentiated urinary ‘coliforms’. The proportion of isolates tested for an antibiotic by a laboratory was a useful indicator of selective testing in this dataset. Selective testing policies had invariably been applied where the proportion of isolates of a species tested against an antibiotic was <90%. As this proportion fell with increasingly selective policies, divergence from pooled-all-Wales non-selective estimates tended to increase, with a bias to increased resistance.

Conclusions: Selective testing, rule-based reporting and urinary coliform identification policies all had significant effects upon resistance estimates. Triage based upon the proportion of isolates tested seemed a useful tool in assigning analysis resources. Where <20% of isolates were tested, selective policies with inherent bias to increased resistance were common, the low number of isolates gave high potential sampling errors, and little confidence could be placed in the resistance estimate. Where 20–90% of isolates were tested, detailed analysis sometimes revealed resistance estimates that might be usefully retrieved. Where >=90% of isolates were tested, there was no evidence of selective testing, and inter-laboratory variation in estimates appeared to be safely ascribable to other effects, e.g. methodology or real variation in resistance levels.

Keywords: community isolates, resistance estimates

* Corresponding author. Tel: +44-29-2052-1997; Fax: +44-29-2052-1987; E-mail: Brendan.mason{at}nphs.wales.nhs.uk

§ Members of the Welsh Antibiotic Study Group are listed in the Acknowledgements.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
A. C. Hayward, K. Goldsmith, A. M. Johnson, and on behalf of the Surveillance Subgroup of SACAR
Report of the Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (SACAR) Surveillance Subgroup
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., August 1, 2007; 60(suppl_1): i33 - i42.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
J. M. Counts, J. R. Astles, F. C. Tenover, and J. Hindler
Systems Approach to Improving Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing in Clinical Laboratories in the United States
J. Clin. Microbiol., July 1, 2007; 45(7): 2230 - 2234.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
J. T. Magee, M. L. Heginbothom, and B. W. Mason
Finding a strategy: the case for co-operative research on resistance epidemiology
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2005; 55(5): 628 - 633.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
J. T. Magee and on behalf of the Welsh Antibiotic Study Group
Effects of duplicate and screening isolates on surveillance of community and hospital antibiotic resistance
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., July 1, 2004; 54(1): 155 - 162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.