Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Correspondence
137 (
3
); 565-565

Authors’ response

Mustafa Kemal University, Medical Faculty, Department of Microbiology & Clinical Microbiology, Antakya-Hatay/Turkey

Read LETTER associated with this -

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

In our study published in the Indian J Med Res, March 20121, disc diffusion susceptibility, and molecular methods to determine of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were studied. We concluded that multiplex PCR can be used for confirmation of the results obtained by conventional phenotypic methods when needed.

Conventional methods are still widely used. MIC testing is among the often used and sensitive methods as well as the DD test. However, identification and determination of the susceptibility to antibiotics of staphylococci by conventional methods (DD and MIC tests) require a minimum of two-days period, whereas the detection of antibiotic resistance genes by PCR assay can be done within a few hours. The PCR based tests are rapid and reliable methods for antibiotic susceptibility and important to institute appropriate therapy. In our study we emphasized on this.

I would like to thank Anil Kumar2 for raising questions on our study.

My response is given below:

  1. In Material & Methods section under subtitle “Susceptibility testing”, the incubation time was written as 37 °C by mistake instead of 35 °C. It needs to be corrected as 35 °C.

  2. As reported by author2, testing at temperatures above 35°C may not detect MRSA. This is not exactly true. Also, in a study conducted by Skor et al3, the influence of incubation time (18 and 24 h) and temperatures (30, 35, 36 and 37°C) on the performance of 10- and 30-μg cefoxitin disks and cefoxitin E test on Mueller-Hinton agar were evaluated for mecA-positive and mecA-negative S. aureus. In this study, the effect of increase in temperature was not significant.

  3. DD was not the method was used in our study, it was one of three methods (dd 0 methods, MIC and molecular methods) used. One of the aims in our study was to compare various methods and emphasize the role of rapid and accurate tests.

  4. Methicillin resistance was determined by three different methods.

  5. It was discussed in discussion section.

  6. All S. aureus isolates (positive for coagulase test) carried the femA gene. Also relevant references were quoted in support.

  7. The idea is solely the opinion of the author. I disagree with the author's proposal.

  8. The author may be right, but primary aim was not that. The idea is solely the opinion of the author.

  9. Table IV. Relationship between gentamicin resistance and the present of three resistance genes (aac(6’)/aph(2”), aph(3’)-IIIa, ant(4’)-Ia), the heading of the fourth column was given right.

  10. This Table (Table II) was given to demonstrate the accuracy of MIC testing for vancomycin.

  11. According to CLSI criteria, the incubation period must be at least 18 h. Therefore, there was no mistake.

References

  1. , , , , , . Antibiotic resistance genes & susceptibility patterns in staphylococci. Indian J Med Res. 2012;135:389-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . Phenotypic screening of resistance mechanism in Staphylococcus aureus. Indian J Med Res. 2013;137:564-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Phenotypic detection of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus by disk diffusion testing and Etest on Mueller-Hinton agar. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:4395-9.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    11

    PDF downloads
    8
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top