<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Stroebel, A.B.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/11050/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Comparison of eight methods to detect vancomycin resistance in enterococci (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8771/</link>
      <pubDate>1998-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>A collection of genetically unrelated vancomycin-resistant enterococci
          (VRE) including 50 vanA, 15 vanB, 50 vanC1, and 30 vanC2 VRE were used to
          evaluate the accuracy of eight currently available susceptibility test
          methods (agar dilution, disk diffusion, E-test, agar screen plate, Vitek
          GPS-TA and GPS-101, and MicroScan overnight and rapid panels). vanA VRE
          were detected by all methods. vanB VRE were often not detected by Vitek
          GPS-TA and MicroScan rapid (sensitivities, 47 and 53%, respectively),
          though the new Vitek GPS-101 was found to be a significant improvement.
          E-test and the agar screen were the only two methods detecting all VRE,
          including the vanC1/C2 VRE.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>