Skip Navigation


JAC Advance Access originally published online on June 9, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
54/1/155    most recent
dkh295v1
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 (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Magee, J. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Magee, J. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2004 54(1):155-162; doi:10.1093/jac/dkh295
JAC vol.54 no.1 © The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2004; all rights reserved.

Effects of duplicate and screening isolates on surveillance of community and hospital antibiotic resistance

J. T. Magee* on behalf of the Welsh Antibiotic Study Group{dagger}

Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, Abton House, Wedal Road, Cardiff CF4 3QX, UK

* Tel: +44-29-2052-1997; Fax: +44-29-2052-1987; Email: john.magee{at}nphs.wales.nhs.uk

Objectives: To investigate common contentions that duplicate and screening isolates consistently show marked excess resistance, and that inclusion of such isolates significantly distorts regional resistance estimates.

Methods: Two Welsh surveys of antibiotic resistance for routine diagnostic isolates were analysed, comprising 309 129 isolates of six common community pathogens and 85 061 ward isolates of 11 common hospital pathogens. Duplicate isolates were defined as isolates from the same patient of the same pathogen with an indistinguishable susceptibility pattern, excluding the initial isolate. Significance was assessed from 95% confidence limits of the difference between resistance estimates.

Results: Duplicate isolates comprised ~20% of total isolates. For the 195 antibiotic–pathogen combinations investigated, differences in resistance between duplicate and non-duplicate isolates were statistically significant for 93. Only 54 combinations showed significantly increased resistance amongst duplicates, and only 30 of these showed a difference >5%. Comparisons of de-duplicated with un-de-duplicated regional resistance estimates showed significant differences for only 18 of 195 antibiotic–pathogen combinations; none were sufficient to alter judgement on clinical use. Screening isolates produced little disturbance of resistance estimates for Staphylococcus aureus, with the exception of flucloxacillin resistance, where inclusion of screening and duplicate isolates resulted in an increase of 4.4% for both community and hospital resistance estimates.

Conclusions: The contentions were incorrect for these regional surveys. However, the proportion (and so effects) of screening and duplicate isolates may be greater in surveys of units with frequent repetitive sampling practice (burns, ITU, cystic fibrosis), or pathogens subjected to unusually intensive infection control sampling.

Keywords: duplicate isolates , screening isolates , antibiotic resistance surveillance


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 Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
M. Sundqvist and G. Kahlmeter
Effect of excluding duplicate isolates of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in a 14 year consecutive database
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2007; 59(5): 913 - 918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
C. Bantar, G. Alcazar, D. Franco, F. Salamone, E. Vesco, T. Stieben, F. Obaid, A. Fiorillo, M. Izaguirre, and M. E. Oliva
Are laboratory-based antibiograms reliable to guide the selection of empirical antimicrobial treatment in patients with hospital-acquired infections?
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., January 1, 2007; 59(1): 140 - 143.
[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]


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.