{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024102564102564103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010769230769230769, 'mean_word_length': 5.569023569023569, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Statistical approach to evaluate the occurrence of out-of acceptable ranges and accuracy for antimicrobial susceptibility tests in inter-laboratory quality control program].

To evaluate the occurrence of out-of acceptable ranges and accuracy of antimicrobial susceptibility tests, we applied a new statistical tool to the Inter-Laboratory Quality Control Program established by the Kyushu Quality Control Research Group. First, we defined acceptable ranges of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for broth microdilution tests and inhibitory zone diameter for disk diffusion tests on the basis of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M100-S21. In the analysis, more than two out-of acceptable range results in the 20 tests were considered as not allowable according to the CLSI document. Of the 90 participating laboratories, 46 (51%) experienced one or more occurrences of out-of acceptable range results. Then, a binomial test was applied to each participating laboratory. The results indicated that the occurrences of out-of acceptable range results in the 11 laboratories were significantly higher when compared to the CLSI recommendation (allowable rate < or = 0.05). The standard deviation indices(SDI) were calculated by using reported results, mean and standard deviation values for the respective antimicrobial agents tested. In the evaluation of accuracy, mean value from each laboratory was statistically compared with zero using a Student's t-test. The results revealed that 5 of the 11 above laboratories reported erroneous test results that systematically drifted to the side of resistance. In conclusion, our statistical approach has enabled us to detect significantly higher occurrences and source of interpretive errors in antimicrobial susceptibility tests; therefore, this approach can provide us with additional information that can improve the accuracy of the test results in clinical microbiology laboratories.