Talk:Antibiotic sensitivity testing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sammy521.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Antibiotic sensitivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103052355/http://www.drkoop.com:80/ency/93/003741.html to http://www.drkoop.com/ency/93/003741.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012221550/http://people.ku.edu:80/~jbrown/antibiotic.html to http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/antibiotic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Improvements directed toward WP:GA status
Hi, great to work with you. Would you have any interest in bringing this article up to GA status with me? I've made some further edits and thought we could discuss the article here so that we don't end up editing at crossways. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, Sorry I'm too busy in real life (controlling a pandemic). I have made a few more edits and corrections today. I'll keep the article on my watchlist. Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @ would it be better to rename this article to antimicrobial sensitivity testing, which seems to be the current and more commonly used name, and in addition covers the use of similar methods for fungi. I'm in two minds about this; an alternative at a future date may be to expand the antimicrobial sensitivity testing article with some content from here, but include additional sections relating to virus / bacteria / fungal methods. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think anti-viral susceptibility testing is best left to a separate article - the techniques are quite different. I am not fussed about the name change at this stage.Graham Beards (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , would it be okay if I start reviewing this right away or would you like some more time to polish the article before the GA review? I know that you might have been expecting a months-long wait. I'm just very excited to see someone besides myself working on improving medical laboratory articles. :) Spicy (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ woah! Yes I was expecting to wait some months. Did you change your username by the way? I think the article is at GA standard but I still have some planned edits. Happy if you want to take up the review but if you could put it on hold for a week or so that would be much appreciated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, I thought it was time for a change. :) I don't mind giving you a few days to work on it. Happy editing, Spicy (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to address this before starting the GA review proper - I'm concerned by the article's reliance on an MDPI journal. MDPI does not have a great reputation and this particular journal is not MEDLINE indexed, so it's questionable if it meets MEDRS. Spicy (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a real pity, because it's an excellent and comprehensive review that contains some basic information that many listed journals might think is too obvious to include. I'll keep searching for a good replacement but this really will take a while. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO textbooks are the best sources for articles like this, they tend to cover the obvious stuff more than journals do. Spicy (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I've replaced and removed I think all the complex or controversial claims from this source. The rest are used to either cite things that I don't think are controversial, or things that are to do with history where I really can't find an equivalent source (and I think to which MEDRS doesn't apply). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - are you ready to start the GA review then? I am a bit busy with other things at the moment but I can see what I can do. Spicy (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @, no rush, things are pretty busy for me too. Happy to wait until you're ready or, if someone else reviews in the meantime, will ping you so that you're aware. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Suitability for FA?
Hey @,, and. I am considering preparing this for a first stab at FA nomination. I haven't ever done this before, would someone be able to mentor me through it and also help advise if you think it's suitable and what changes you feel I'll need to make? Many thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time or experience to be a FA mentor, but I'd be interested in improving the article towards FA status if you are. I've read Graham Beards' comments on his talk page and agree with his points. The article relies heavily on journal articles at the moment which IMO aren't the best sources for general coverage of a broad topic like this one - some of the issues with comprehensiveness could be improved by making use of more book sources (I have added a few). I haven't looked, but I suspect there is more to say about the history. The prose will also need some work for FA status, and I'm not the best person to help with that. Spicy (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at this again. I think the organization of the article needs work - it's very confusing to explain how the MIC is measured at the same time as what the MIC is and why it's important. The 'Reporting' section might work better as a subsection of 'Medical uses'. Spicy (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article needs much more on the interpretation of the results and the "expert rules" which are employed by both EUCast and CLSI. (Sometimes these rules contradict each other). Most automated methods use these rules, which are embedded in the software and can go unnoticed in busy labs. The VITEK system allows users (with admin rights) to switch between the two and often cultures with borderline breakpoints will be reported as sensitive based on one set of rules, but resistant by the other. These rules are the essence of testing. Here, for example is what EUCast rules say about vancomycin resistant enterococci "if resistant to vancomycin, determine the MIC and report dalbavancin, oritavancin and telavancin after consulting EUCAST guidance document “What to do when there are no breakpoints”. Describing the practical methods we use in our labs will not be enough for a FA. A good rule of thumb would be that even folk who set up and run these tests everyday, should discover something in the article they did not previously know. Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)