Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 May;51(5):1548-54. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03088-12. Epub 2013 Mar 13.

Multilaboratory study of the Biomic automated well-reading instrument versus MicroScan WalkAway for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels.

Author information

Scott & White Healthcare, Temple, Texas, USA.


This study compared the Biomic automated well reader results to the MicroScan WalkAway results for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels at four different sites. Routine fresh clinical isolates and quality control (QC) organisms were tested at each study site. A total of 46,176 MicroScan panel drug-organism combinations were read. The Biomic category agreement for 3,117 Gram-negative bacteria was 98.4%, with 1.4% minor and 0.2% major discrepancies. The Biomic category agreement for 5,233 Gram-positive bacteria was 98.7%, with 0.9% minor, 0.3% major, and 0.1% very major errors. Essential agreement, defined as Biomic results that were within ±1 2-fold dilution of the MicroScan results, was 99.3% for Gram-negative bacteria and 98.3% for Gram-positive bacteria. Biomic reading of MicroScan identification panels provided an overall agreement (first- and second-choice organism match) of 99.5% with 846 Gram-negative isolates and 99.5% with 430 Gram-positive isolates. These results suggest that the Biomic automated reader can provide accurate reading of MicroScan panels and has the capability of a visual panel read for manual adjustment of results.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center