Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 4323       

   Table of Contents      
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 139  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 646-647

Authors' response


Department of Microbiology, Immunology & Molecular Biology, Cloithram Hospital & Research Centre, Manik Bagh Road, Indore 452 014, India

Date of Web Publication9-Jun-2014

Correspondence Address:
Dhananjay Sadashiv Chitnis
Department of Microbiology, Immunology & Molecular Biology, Cloithram Hospital & Research Centre, Manik Bagh Road, Indore 452 014
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 25055396

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chitnis S, Katara G, Hemavani N, Pareek S, Chitnis DS. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res 2014;139:646-7

How to cite this URL:
Chitnis S, Katara G, Hemavani N, Pareek S, Chitnis DS. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Apr 24];139:646-7. Available from: http://www.ijmr.org.in/text.asp?2014/139/4/646/134142

We thank V. Anil Kumar for his observations on our paper. We offer the following clarifications:

(i) Cefoxitin is expected to give higher sensitivity and specificity than oxacillin for the detection of MRSA. The reference quoted by Anil Kumar is based on the isolates having borderline oxacillin MIC. Our isolates could be having higher MIC for the two drugs.

(ii) We agree that inducible sensitive to clindamycin is an important issue and we have not included the data on inducible clindamycin resistance.

(iii) Resistance to ampicillin (67.67%) described in the Table was based on CLSI guidelines. However, some of the isolates showing intermediate level susceptibility were not included as resistant and could be the reason for the discrepancy.

(iv) We do agree when the organism is labelled as MRSA, all beta lactams are to be considered as resistant despite in vitro susceptibility to some of the beta lactam.

(v) The study includes data of 2008 as well, and the CLSI guidelines appeared later in 2009. The emphasis on MIC for vancomycin was hence given in our study.

(vi) The study did not include high level aminolycoside resistance and this could be a limitation of the study.

(vii) We accept that vancomycin MIC < 2 µg /ml is considered as susceptible and MIC 3 µg /ml should have been taken up as reduced susceptibility.




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed286    
    Printed7    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded174    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal