There are two interpretive criteria for the results of epidemiological in-vitro anti-bacterial sensitivity studies, namely EUCAST and CLSI. Can I use both in a single study - e.g. using CLSI in an institution and the EUCAST in another institution?
** Kindly note that I'm asking about the mere scientific validity and soundness, regardless of the institution standards.
Regards,
It is advisable to use one interpretive criteria. No two standards are exactly the same. Therefore using more than one criteria may complicate interpretation of results by generating contentions.
In case you have been using the standard set by Federal Drug Authority (FDA) there is an exception where by FDA recognizes the standard published in "Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019". In this case you may use more an additional interpretive criteria. Note that modifications to the list of recognized consensus standards: Publications in the Federal Register to the list of recognized consensus standards can be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm. Thank you.
It is advisable to use one interpretive criteria. No two standards are exactly the same. Therefore using more than one criteria may complicate interpretation of results by generating contentions.
In case you have been using the standard set by Federal Drug Authority (FDA) there is an exception where by FDA recognizes the standard published in "Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 29th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019". In this case you may use more an additional interpretive criteria. Note that modifications to the list of recognized consensus standards: Publications in the Federal Register to the list of recognized consensus standards can be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards/ucm123792.htm. Thank you.
It would be much better to use one criteria.
If you already have the assessments, you will need to show that the two criteria correspond to a reasonable degree. Looking at the data together would then be more descriptive than meta-analytic. I would look for studies comparing the two methods and the level of agreement between them. Information for each site in a table. Discussion of measures of agreement of the two methods and whether you believe your results correspond. One strength would be if the outcome measured by both methods points towards the same conclusion.
To detect a resistance phénotype in the lab, I I always compare the zone diameters between CLSI and EUCaST to be sure that I don't have a false negative result. Because the criteria used by both recommandations are probabilities ( to be resistant or susceptible), I always use the highest diametrers. For example, for an antibiotic X, CLSI recommnds 25 mm ans EUCAST 23mm, when you have a diameter of 24mm, I use CLSI
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Microorganisms
- Bacteria