Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: 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 Description SizeFormat 
ICECVM (1).pdf820.33 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

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.