Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of jcmPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalJCM ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
J Clin Microbiol. 1994 January; 32(1): 40–45.
PMCID: PMC262966

Comparison of direct and standardized testing of infected urine for antimicrobial susceptibilities by disk diffusion.


A total of 14,272 urine specimens were examined over one year to determine the validity of direct antimicrobial agent susceptibility testing against ampicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalothin, gentamicin, norfloxacin, and trimethoprim. A comparison between direct and standardized disk diffusion tests was made for a total of 1,106 urine specimens containing > or = 10(5) organisms per ml in pure culture. There were 5,821 individual organism-antimicrobial agent challenges compared for the two testing methods, and there was complete agreement of susceptibility category in 5,492 comparisons (94.3%). Initially, discordant results were reduced from 5.7 to 2.1% when the intermediate category was considered susceptible. Intralaboratory variation was assessed by testing another 453 organisms by the standard National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) method on two consecutive days; there was complete agreement in 96.1% of comparisons. When results of direct and standardized testing were simply classified as susceptible or resistant, there was 1.1% discordance. When simple same-day tests were used together with predictable patterns of susceptibility and resistance, 536 (48.5%) of 1,106 isolates could be identified satisfactorily to the genus or species level. For laboratory reporting purposes, the direct method is equivalent to the standard method when the urine being tested is infected with > or = 10(5) organisms of a single type per ml. The presence or absence of preexisting antimicrobial agents in urine did not appreciably influence the results. This procedure allows the earlier reporting of susceptibility results and facilitates less expensive identification of many organisms. Costs and benefits need to be determined in each institution.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.0M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Barry AL, Joyce LJ, Adams AP, Benner EJ. Rapid determination of antimicrobial susceptibility for urgent clinical situations. Am J Clin Pathol. 1973 May;59(5):693–699. [PubMed]
  • Blue AP, Gordon DL. Is primary sensitivity testing on urine samples valid? Pathology. 1991 Apr;23(2):149–152. [PubMed]
  • Campo L, Mylotte JM. Use of microbiology reports by physicians in prescribing antimicrobial agents. Am J Med Sci. 1988 Dec;296(6):392–398. [PubMed]
  • Cohen SN, Kass EH. A simple method for quantitative urine culture. N Engl J Med. 1967 Jul 27;277(4):176–180. [PubMed]
  • D'Amato RF, Hochstein L. Evaluation of a rapid inoculum preparation method for agar disk diffusion susceptibility testing. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Feb;15(2):282–285. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dean R, Herlihy E, McGuire EJ. The accuracy of antimicrobial disk sensitivity testing in urinary tract infections. J Urol. 1978 Jul;120(1):80–81. [PubMed]
  • Edberg SC, Trepeta RW. Rapid and economical identification and antimicrobial susceptibility test methodology for urinary tract pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 1983 Dec;18(6):1287–1291. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fair WR, Fair WR., 3rd Clinical value of sensitivity determinations in treating urinary tract infections. Urology. 1982 May;19(5):565–569. [PubMed]
  • Hollick GE, Washington JA., 2nd Comparison of direct and standardized disk diffusion susceptibility testing of urine cultures. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 May;9(5):804–809. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Källenius G, Dornbusch K, Hallander HO, Jakobsson K. Comparison of direct and standardized antibiotic susceptibility testing in bacteriuria. Chemotherapy. 1981;27(2):99–105. [PubMed]
  • Perez JR, Gillenwater JY. Clinical evaluation of testing immediate antibiotic disk sensitivities in bacteriuria. J Urol. 1973 Oct;110(4):452–456. [PubMed]
  • Scully PG, O'Shea B, Flanagan KP, Falkiner FR. Urinary tract infection in general practice: direct antibiotic sensitivity testing as a potential diagnostic method. Ir J Med Sci. 1990 Apr;159(4):98–100. [PubMed]
  • Sutter VL, Carter WT. Evaluation of media and reagents for indole-spot tests in anaerobic bacteriology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1972 Sep;58(3):335–338. [PubMed]
  • Szczepura AK. Efficiency in pathology laboratories: a survey of operations management in NHS bacteriology. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(5):531–543. [PubMed]
  • Thornsberry C, Gavan TL, Sherris JC, Balows A, Matsen JM, Sabath LD, Schoenknecht F, Thrupp LD, Washington JA., 2nd Laboratory evaluation of a rapid, automatic susceptibility testing system: report of a collaborative study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Apr;7(4):466–480. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Waterworth PM, Del Piano M. Dependability of sensitivity tests in primary culture. J Clin Pathol. 1976 Mar;29(3):179–184. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)