Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026
Direct Microbial Identification using An Automated Microbial Identification System to Facilitate the EUCAST RAST Method Without Mass Spectrometry
Published on: May 24, 2024
Evaluation of the MicroScan MICroSTREP plus antimicrobial panel for testing β-hemolytic streptococci and viridans
Sung Ju Kim1, Young Uh, In Ho Jang
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Background:
In order to determine the clinical usefulness of the MicroScan (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, USA) MICroSTREP plus antimicrobial panel (MICroSTREP) for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of β-hemolytic streptococci (BHS) and viridans group streptococci (VGS), we compared the accuracy of MICroSTREP with that of the CLSI reference method.
Methods:
Seventy-five BHS and 59 VGS isolates were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility to ampicillin, penicillin, cefotaxime, meropenem, erythromycin, clindamycin, levofloxacin, and vancomycin by using MICroSTREP and the CLSI agar dilution method.
Results:
The overall essential agreement with regard to minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) (within ±1 double dilution) between MICroSTREP and the CLSI reference method was 98.2%, and categorical agreement (CA) was 96.9%. For the BHS isolates, the CA for erythromycin was 96.0%, whereas that for cefotaxime, meropenem, levofloxacin, and vancomycin (for ampicillin, penicillin, and clindamycin; 98.7%) was 100%. For the VGS isolates, the CA for penicillin was 84.7% and that for erythromycin, clindamycin, and vancomycin (for meropenem, 86.5%; for ampicillin, 88.1%; and for cefotaxime and levofloxacin, 96.6%) was 100%. All categorical errors of penicillin and ampicillin in the VGS isolates were minor.
Conclusions:
The accuracy of MICroSTREP is comparable to that of the CLSI reference method, suggesting that this panel can be effective for testing antimicrobial susceptibility of BHS and VGS.
