Correlation of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Results between the Vitek System and the Biomic System

  • Tammy L. Wolfram
  • C. Ross McFarland
  • James A. Poupard
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 349)


This study compared the BIOMIC system to the Vitek system to determine the percentage of agreement between the minimum inhibitory concentrations. The BIOMIC semi-automated system employs disk diffusion test zone diameters to determine minimum inhibitory concentrations. Results were in agreement when the BIOMIC minimum inhibitory concentration was within ± 1 doubling dilution of the Vitek result. A total of 137 clinical isolates, including Enterobacteriaceae, non-fermenters, staphylococci, and enterococci were tested. The overall agreement for 1335 organism/drug combinations was 85%, with 10% minor and 5% major discrepancies. The agreement by organism group was 87% for Enterobacteriaceae, 87% for nonfermenters, and 79% for enterococci and staphylococci. Antimicrobic combinations that exhibited a high discrepancy rate included tetracycline vs. Enterobacteriaceae (39%) and amikacin vs. nonfermenters (30%). An agreement of 100% was found for ciprofloxacin and imipenem vs. nonfermenters, as well as for clindamycin and oxacillin vs. staphylococci. This study showed the BIOMIC system to be an acceptable, cost-effective alternative for determining minimum inhibitory concentrations.


Major Discrepancy Clavulanic Acid Acinetobacter Calcoaceticus Disk Diffusion Test BIOMIC System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B.A. Backes, S.J. Cavalieri, J.T. Rudrick, and E.M. Britt, Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative clinical isolates with the automicrobic system. J. Clin. Microbiol. 19:744–747 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.L. Barry, “The Antimicrobic Susceptibility Test, Principles and Practices”, pp. 196–207, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.L. Barry, Procedures for testing antimicrobial agents in agar media: theoretical considerations, pp. 1–23 in: “Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine”, V. Lorian ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore (1980).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.L. Barry, C. Thornsberry, and R.N. Jones, Gentamicin and amikacin disk susceptibility tests with Pseudomonas aeruginosa: definition of minimal inhibitory concentration correlates for susceptible and resistant categories, J. Clin. Microbiol. 13:1000–1003 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.F. D’Amato, L. Hochstein, J.R. Vernaleo, D.J. Cleri, A.A. Wallman, M.S. Gradus, and C. Thornsberry, Evaluation of the BIOGRAM antimicrobial susceptibility test system, J. Clin. Microbiol. 22:793–798 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H.M. Ericsson, and J.C. Sherris, Antibiotic Sensitivity Testing, report of an international collaborative study, Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 217(Suppl.):1–90(1971).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.L. Hansen, and P.K. Freedy, Concurrent comparability of automated systems and commerically prepared microdilution trays for susceptibility testing, J. Clin. Microbiol. 17:878–886 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Approved Standard: NCCLS Document M2–A4, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptiblity Tests, 4th edition NCCLS, Villanova, PA. (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.L. Sautter, and G.A. Denys, Comparison of BIOGRAM and commercial microdilution antimicrobial test systems, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25:301–304 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.A. Washington, P.K.W. Yu, T.L. Gavan, F.D. Schoenknecht, and C. Thornsberry, Interpretation of the disk diffusion susceptiblity test for amikacin: report of a collaberative study, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15:400–407 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.F. Woolfrey, B.F. R.T. Lally, M.N. Ederer, and C.O. Quail, Evaluation of the automicrobic system for susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin, J. Clin. Microbiol. 19:502–505 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tammy L. Wolfram
    • 1
  • C. Ross McFarland
    • 2
  • James A. Poupard
    • 3
  1. 1.St. Joseph HospitalReadingUSA
  2. 2.Pottstown Memorial Medical CenterPottstownUSA
  3. 3.SmithKline BeechamKing of PrussiaUSA

Personalised recommendations