title: Editorial: assessing the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria obtained from animals.
abstract: The accurate performance of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria from animal sources and the correct presentation of the results is a complex matter. A review of the published literature revealed a number of recurring errors with regard to methodology, quality control, appropriate interpretive criteria, and calculation of MIC(50) and MIC(90) values. Although more subjective, there is also no consensus regarding the definition of multiresistance. This Editorial is intended to provide guidance to authors on how to avoid these frequently detected shortcomings.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Schwarz
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Silley
authors.forename: Shabbir
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Simjee
authors.forename: Neil
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Woodford
authors.forename: Engeline
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: van Duijkeren
authors.forename: Alan P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.forename: Wim
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Gaastra
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000494:pharmacology*; D001419:Bacteria / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control; D024901:Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D011786:Quality Control
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents