Volume 11, Number 10—October 2005
Research
Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
Fenfang Li*
, Tracy L. Ayers†, Sarah Y. Park†, F. DeWolfe Miller*, Ralph MacFadden†, Michele Nakata†, Myra Ching Lee†, and Paul V. Effler†
, Tracy L. Ayers†, Sarah Y. Park†, F. DeWolfe Miller*, Ralph MacFadden†, Michele Nakata†, Myra Ching Lee†, and Paul V. Effler†
Table 2
Application of different methods of duplicate isolate removal based on hypothetical data in Table 1*
| Method | No. isolates | No. susceptible (%)† |
|---|---|---|
| No removal | 21 | 9 (43) |
| Cerner, 3 d | 19 | 8 (42) |
| NCCLS, 3 d | 18 | 7 (39) |
| Cerner, 10 d | 15 | 6 (40) |
| NCCLS, 10 d | 12 | 4 (33) |
| Cerner, 30 d | 12 | 5 (42) |
| NCCLS, 30 d | 9 | 3 (33) |
| Cerner, 90 d | 10 | 4 (40) |
| NCCLS, 90 d | 6 | 2 (33) |
| Cerner, 365 d | 7 | 3 (43) |
| NCCLS, 365 d | 3 | 1 (33) |
| Most resistant | 3 | 0 |
| Most susceptible | 3 | 2 (67) |
*d, days; NCCLS, National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards.
†Susceptibility percentage is calculated as the proportion of the number of susceptible isolates divided by the number of total isolates tested and eligible for inclusion according to the analysis method used.
Page created: February 22, 2012
Page updated: February 22, 2012
Page reviewed: February 22, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.