Using BMD as a reference method > 4 g/ml) et des erreurs mineures three E.

Faecalis and two faecium isolates; results for the three fecal isolates were falsely sensitive. There were three major errors with staphylococcus and one with an enterococcal. Interpretation of the Phoenix system for staphylococci with unresponsive lezolid results was “N” (i.e. non-susceptible). Performance characteristics (MIC agreements and errors) between five automated systems If recidivism tests correct the error, the repeat result must be maintained as definitive, as shown in example 1 in Table S4. If MIC values are in log2 dilution ±1, but there is a category error, the results and error status must be indicated. This scenario is more common when there is no intermediate point and/or resistance mechanism that gives MIC values near the stopping point by the BMD method. These errors should be considered less critical, as the test works as intended, given the restrictions imposed on STAs. If the two repeated MIC results are different, but one is equal or in ±1 dilution of the initial result, this value must be selected, as shown in example 2 in Table S4. The variability observed in Table S4 is particularly problematic because the exact outcome of the MIC is not clearly defined and may be a characteristic of the isolate to be evaluated when tested against an antimicrobial or a particular class. Such variability is, in most years, a characteristic of a combination between the active substance and the isolate, and these performance problems may not constitute a systematic problem with ASAT, but rather a problem with the isolate studied.