Ве молиме користете го овој идентификатор да го цитирате или поврзете овој запис: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/30730
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTimofte Dorinaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCvetkovikj, Iskraen_US
dc.contributor.authorZendr Flaviaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBlum Schlomoen_US
dc.contributor.authorChaintoutis Serafeimen_US
dc.contributor.authorKoop Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorStritov Zrinkaen_US
dc.contributor.authorKittl Sonjaen_US
dc.contributor.authorZdovc Irenaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaulshus Eriken_US
dc.contributor.authorKoritnik Tomen_US
dc.contributor.authorLaconi Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorBroens Elsen_US
dc.contributor.authorDamborg Peteren_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-21T17:57:54Z-
dc.date.available2024-06-21T17:57:54Z-
dc.date.issued2022-09-15-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/30730-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Veterinary diagnostic laboratories (VDLs) play a key role in determining the aetiology of infectious diseases and antimicrobial stewardship. However, there is still a lack of harmonisation of methodologies and procedures used in European VDLs (1,2). Methods: The European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Treatment (ENOVAT) designed a survey, which was distributed via a public online platform to VDLs in 34 European countries. The survey focused on practices and interpretive criteria used for culture and identification (C&ID), and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of veterinary bacterial pathogens. Results: Two hundred and ninety laboratories responded, representing a mixture of academic (39%), government (33%), and private (28%) laboratories. Average C&ID turnaround varied from 1-2 days (78%) to 3-5 days (20%), and 6-8 days (0.5%). For AST, similar time frames were achieved by 63%, 60%, and 0.5% of VDLs, respectively. Only 57% of laboratories attempted bacterial ID to species level. Biochemical ID systems (e.g., API kits) were the most used (56%) followed by MALDI-TOF MS (46%). For AST, Kirby-Bauer disc-diffusion (DD) and MIC determination were conducted by 44% and 33% of laboratories, respectively. A combination of EUCAST and CLSI clinical breakpoints was most commonly used for interpretation of both DD (41%) and MIC (47%). Only 48% and 46% of VDLs routinely screened isolates for methicillin resistance and ESBL production, respectively. Conclusion: A variety of methodologies were identified for C&ID and AST in European VDLs. Our results emphasize the need to harmonise methodologies and provide better guidelines, to ultimately improve animal and public health.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEuropean Society of Veterinary Microbiologyen_US
dc.subjectENOVAT, AST, antimicrobial stewardshipen_US
dc.titleThe ENOVAT survey on current methodologies used for bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in European veterinary diagnostic laboratories.en_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
crisitem.author.deptFaculty of Veterinary Medicine-
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: Conference papers
Files in This Item:
File Опис SizeFormat 
ICECVM (1).pdf820.33 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Прикажи едноставен запис

Page view(s)

50
checked on 3.5.2025

Download(s)

32
checked on 3.5.2025

Google ScholarTM

Проверете


Записите во DSpace се заштитени со авторски права, со сите права задржани, освен ако не е поинаку наведено.