Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/30730
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Timofte Dorina | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Cvetkovikj, Iskra | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Zendr Flavia | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Blum Schlomo | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chaintoutis Serafeim | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Koop Peter | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Stritov Zrinka | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kittl Sonja | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Zdovc Irena | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Paulshus Erik | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Koritnik Tom | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Laconi Andrea | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Broens Els | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Damborg Peter | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-06-21T17:57:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-06-21T17:57:54Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022-09-15 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/30730 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: 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.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | European Society of Veterinary Microbiology | en_US |
dc.subject | ENOVAT, AST, antimicrobial stewardship | en_US |
dc.title | The ENOVAT survey on current methodologies used for bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing in European veterinary diagnostic laboratories. | en_US |
dc.type | Proceedings | en_US |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.grantfulltext | open | - |
crisitem.author.dept | Faculty of Veterinary Medicine | - |
Appears in Collections: | Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: Conference papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ICECVM (1).pdf | 820.33 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Page view(s)
22
checked on Sep 22, 2024
Download(s)
3
checked on Sep 22, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.