Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
    NOYES, N. R. BENEDICT, K. M. GOW, S. P. WALDNER, C. L. REID-SMITH, R. J. BOOKER, C. W. McALLISTER, T. A. and MORLEY, P. S. 2016. Modelling considerations in the analysis of associations between antimicrobial use and resistance in beef feedlot cattle. Epidemiology and Infection, Vol. 144, Issue. 06, p. 1313.
    Benedict, Katharine M. Gow, Sheryl P. McAllister, Tim A. Booker, Calvin W. Hannon, Sherry J. Checkley, Sylvia L. Noyes, Noelle R. Morley, Paul S. and Ibekwe, A. Mark 2015. Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Recovered from Feedlot Cattle and Associations with Antimicrobial Use. PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, Issue. 12, p. e0143995.
    ×
  • Get access
    Add to cart USD35.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register Recommend to librarian

Latent class comparison of test accuracy when evaluating antimicrobial susceptibility using disk diffusion and broth microdilution to test Escherichia coli and Mannheimia haemolytica isolates recovered from beef feedlot cattle

  • K. M. BENEDICT (a1), S. P. GOW (a2), R. J. REID-SMITH (a3), C. W. BOOKER (a4), T. A. McALLISTER (a5) and P. S. MORLEY (a1)...
Summary

The study objective was to use Bayesian latent class analysis to evaluate the accuracy of susceptibility test results obtained from disk diffusion and broth microdilution using bacteria recovered from beef feedlot cattle. Isolates of Escherichia coli and Mannheimia haemolytica were tested for susceptibility to ampicillin, ceftiofur, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, tetracycline, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Results showed that neither testing method was always or even generally superior to the other. Specificity (ability to correctly classify non-resistant isolates) was extremely high for both testing methods, but sensitivity (ability to correctly classify resistant isolates) was lower, variable in the drugs evaluated, and variable between the two bacterial species. Predictive values estimated using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo models showed that the ability to predict true susceptibility status was equivalent for test results obtained with the two testing methods for some drugs, but for others there were marked differences between results obtained from disk diffusion and broth microdilution tests.

Copyright
COPYRIGHT: © Cambridge University Press 2014 
Corresponding author
* Author for correspondence: Dr P. S. Morley, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, 300 West Drake, 1678 Campus Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1678, USA. (Email: paul.morley@colostate.edu)
References
Hide All
1. Greenwood, D. In vitro veritas? Antimicrobial susceptibility tests and their clinical relevance. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1981; 144: 380–385.
2. Greenwood, D. Detection of antibiotic resistance in vitro. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2000; 14: 303–306.
3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk and dilution susceptibility tests for bacteria isolated from animals; approved standard, 2nd edn. Wayne, PA, USA. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2013.
4. Kahlmeter, G, et al. European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2003; 52: 145–148.
5. Simjee, S, et al. Potential confusion regarding the term 'resistance' in epidemiological surveys. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2008; 61: 228–229.
6. Metzler, C, DeHaan, R. Susceptibility tests of anaerobic bacteria: statistical and clinical considerations. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1974; 130: 588–594.
7. Murray, P, Zeitinger, J, Krogstad, D. Reliability of disc diffusion susceptibility testing. Infection Control 1982; 3: 230–237.
8. Klement, E, et al. Assessment of accuracy of disk diffusion tests for the determination of antimicrobial susceptibility of common bovine mastitis pathogens: a novel approach. Microbial Drug Resistance 2005; 11: 342–350.
9. Kuper, KM, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: a primer for clinicians. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 2: 1326–1343.
10. Turnidge, J, Paterson, DL. Setting and revising antibacterial susceptibility breakpoints. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2007; 20:391–408.
11. Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) 2008. Government of Canada. Guelph, ON: Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cipars-picra/2008/6-eng.php#Ant). Accessed 5 July 2012.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for Enteric Bacteria (NARMS): Human Isolates Final Report, 2010. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2012 (http://www.cdc.gov/narms/pdf/2010-annual-report-narms.pdf). Accessed 5 July 2012.
13. Enoe, C, Georgiadis, M, Johnson, W. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 2000; 45: 61–81.
14. Aarestrup, F. Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance among food animals: principles and limitations. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, B: Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health 2004; 51: 380–388.
15. Levy, S, Marshall, B. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nature Medicine Supplement 2004; 10: S122–S129.
16. McEwen, S, Fedorka-Cray, P. Antimicrobial use and resistance in animals. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2002; 34: S93.
17. Vieira, AR, et al. Using data on resistance prevalence per sample in the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2008; 62: 535–538.
18. Phillips, I. The 1997 Garrod Lecture. The subtleties of antibiotic resistance. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1998; 42: 5–12.
19. Caprioli, A, et al. Monitoring of antibiotic resistance in bacteria of animal origin: epidemiological and microbiological methodologies. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2000; 14:295–301.
20. Varaldo, P. Antimicrobial resistance and susceptibility testing: an evergreen topic. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2002; 50: 1–4.
21. Benedict, et al. Methodological comparisons for antimicrobial resistance surveillance in feedlot cattle. BMC Veterinary Research 2013; 9: 216.
22. Alexander, TW, et al. A multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for the identification of Mannheimia haemolytica, Mannheimia glucosida, and Mannheimia ruminalis . Veterinary Microbiology 2008, 130: 165–175.
23. Alexander, TW, et al. Recovery of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli after storage of bovine feces in Cary-Blair medium. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 2009, 55: 1224–1227.
24. Lunn, D, et al. WinBUGS – a Bayesian modeling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2002; 10: 325–337.
25. Branscum, AJ, Gardner, IA, Johnson, WO. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 2005; 68: 145–63.
26. Johnson, W, Gastwirth, J. Dual group screening. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2000; 83: 449–473.
27. Schenker, N, Gentleman, J. On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2001; 55: 182–186.
28. Altman, D, Bland, J. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. British Medical Journal 1994; 309:102.
29. Rao, S, et al. Antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance in enteric bacteria among cattle from Alberta feedlots. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 2009; 7:449–457.
30. Watts, J, et al. A 4-year survey of antimicrobial susceptibility trends for isolates from cattle with bovine respiratory disease in North America. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1994; 32: 725–731.
31. Georgiadis, et al. Correlation adjusted estimation of sensitivity and specificity of two diagnostic tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 2003; 52: 63–76.
32. Gelman, A, Rubin, D. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 1992; 7: 457–511.
33. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases, chapter 1.1.5. In Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, 2012 (http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/1.01.05_VALIDATION.pdf). Accessed 8 July 2013.
34. Hui, S, Walter, S. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1980; 36: 167–171.
35. Livermore, D, McGowan, A, Wale, M. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 614–615.
36. Greiner, M, Gardner, I. Application of diagnostic tests in veterinary epidemiologic studies. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 2000; 45: 43–59.
37. Thrusfield, M. Veterinary Epidemiology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd, 2005.
38. Toft, N, Jorgensen, E, Hojsgaard, S. Diagnosing diagnostic tests: evaluating the assumptions underlying the estimation of sensitivity and specificity in the absence of a gold standard. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 2005; 68: 19–33.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Epidemiology & Infection
  • ISSN: 0950-2688
  • EISSN: 1469-4409
  • URL: /core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Benedict Supplementary Material
Figures

 Word (926 KB)
926 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 27 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 244 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 13th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Cancel
Confirm
×