Table 3. The number of AST results and agreement & error rates between QMAC-dRAST and Vitek 2* for each bacterial species

Ann Clin Microbiol 2022;25:109-118. Clinical usefulness of the QMAC-dRAST system for AmpC β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales

Table 3. The number of AST results and agreement & error rates between QMAC-dRAST and Vitek 2* for each bacterial species

Bacterial species	No. of AST results	No. of susceptibility category in Vitek 2†			EA	CA	VME	ME	mE
Bacterial species	No. of AST results	R	I	S	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)
M. morganii	280	88	12	180	257 (91.8)	252 (90.0)	0	6 (3.3)	22 (7.9)
S. marcescens	280	78	5	197	264 (94.3)	261 (93.2)	2 (2.6)	4 (2.0)	13 (4.6)
K. aerogenes	140	41	2	97	133 (95.0)	132 (94.3)	0	3 (3.1)	5 (3.6)
E. cloacae	140	63	9	68	136 (97.1)	130 (92.9)	0	3 (4.4)	7 (5.0)
C. freundii	280	86	0	194	274 (97.9)	267 (95.4)	4 (4.7)	1 (0.5)	8 (2.9)
Total	1,120	356	28	736	1,064 (95.0)	1,042 (93.0)	6 (1.7)	17 (2.3)	55 (4.9)

*Discrepant results between QMAC-dRAST and Vitek 2 were resolved using the BMD test. †Several Vitek 2 AST results that exhibited a different susceptibility category from results of QMAC-dRAST were replaced with BMD test results. Abbreviations: AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; R, resistant; I, intermediate; S, susceptible; EA, essential agreement; CA, categorical agreement; VME, very major error; ME, major error; mE, minor error.