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: 793       

   Table of Contents      
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 136  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 884-885

Authors' response


Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR), Post Bag No. 13, Port Blair, 744 101, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India

Date of Web Publication2-Jan-2013

Correspondence Address:
A P Sugunan
Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR), Post Bag No. 13, Port Blair, 744 101, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Thamizhmani R, Bhattacharya D, Sugunan A P. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res 2012;136:884-5

How to cite this URL:
Thamizhmani R, Bhattacharya D, Sugunan A P. Authors' response. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Oct 20];136:884-5. Available from: https://www.ijmr.org.in/text.asp?2012/136/5/884/105422

Sir,

We appreciate the authors [1] for their keen interest in our work. We used CLSI Guidelines 2007 for interpreting the results of antibacterial drug sensitivity testing [2] .

The Table in the article [2] shows the results of disk diffusion test as well as estimation of MIC using E-test. The categorization of the isolates as 'Sensitive', 'Resistant' and 'Intermediate resistant' was based purely on the results of disk diffusion test. We had estimated the MICs of only the fluoroquinolones and this had been mentioned in the article. Therefore, it was obvious that the categorization of the isolates' drug sensitivity status was based on the results of disk diffusion test.

Khan and Anil Kumar [1] point out that as per CLSI 2012, strains with MIC < 0.06 μg/ml are considered susceptible to ciprofloxacin. We thank them for adding this information. This change in the cut-off, obviously, would result in all our five isolates of S. enterica serovar Typhi being categorized as not susceptible to ciprofloxacin. Further, nowhere in the article did we mention that we used MICs to categorize the isolates' drug sensitivity status. However, we agree that the use of the term 'intermediate level resistance ' in the statement in the article (page 100, paragraph 3, lines 9-11) '…the remaining above the level (0.125 μg/ml) that is considered to confer intermediate level resistance…' could be misleading and it should have been mentioned as 'reduced susceptibility'.

 
   References Top

1.Khan S, Anil Kumar V. Pitfalls of interpreting ciprofloxacin minimum inhibitory concentration in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. Indian J Med Res 2012; 136 : 884-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Tamizhmani R, Bhattacharya D, Sayi DS, Bhattacharjee H, Muruganandam N, Ghosal SR, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Indian J Med Res 2012; 136 : 98-101.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

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
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed292    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded177    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal