Review



reference bmd  (Laboratory Specialists Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Laboratory Specialists Inc reference bmd
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Reference Bmd, supplied by Laboratory Specialists Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pmc11837567-78-17-0?v=Laboratory+Specialists+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    reference bmd - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution"

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference BMD and ComASP (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference BMD and ComASP (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).

    Techniques Used:

    Summary of ComASP using 2 different reading methods compared to CLSI BMD MIC by bacterial species for combined clinical and challenge organisms (category agreement and errors based on FDA breakpoints) <xref ref-type= a , b " title="Summary of ComASP using 2 different reading methods compared ..." property="contentUrl" width="100%" height="100%"/>
    Figure Legend Snippet: Summary of ComASP using 2 different reading methods compared to CLSI BMD MIC by bacterial species for combined clinical and challenge organisms (category agreement and errors based on FDA breakpoints) a , b

    Techniques Used: Inhibition

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 210 Enterobacterales* (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; FDA/CLSI Breakpoints [indicated with red-dotted lines]).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 210 Enterobacterales* (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; FDA/CLSI Breakpoints [indicated with red-dotted lines]).

    Techniques Used: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 126 P . aeruginosa (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 126 P . aeruginosa (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Techniques Used: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 92 A . baumannii (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 92 A . baumannii (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Techniques Used: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 40 S . maltophilia (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; CLSI breakpoint [indicated with red-dotted line]).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 40 S . maltophilia (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; CLSI breakpoint [indicated with red-dotted line]).

    Techniques Used: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for Enterobacterales species that are not FDA clinically indicated (combined clinical and challenge isolates) (a) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, CLSI Read, EA = 76.7% (b) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, ComASP Read, EA = 95.3%.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for Enterobacterales species that are not FDA clinically indicated (combined clinical and challenge isolates) (a) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, CLSI Read, EA = 76.7% (b) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, ComASP Read, EA = 95.3%.

    Techniques Used: Comparison



    Similar Products

    reference bmd etest p aeruginosa atcc 27853  (ATCC)
    99
    ATCC reference bmd etest p aeruginosa atcc 27853
    Reference Bmd Etest P Aeruginosa Atcc 27853, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/fda_document____cdrh_docs_slash_reviews_slash_k190154-55-8-13?v=ATCC
    Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    reference bmd etest p aeruginosa atcc 27853 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    99/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    custom frozen reference bmd panels  (Thermo Fisher)
    90
    Thermo Fisher custom frozen reference bmd panels
    Comparison of error rates for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX DD as compared to <t>BMD,</t> all BCC isolates. VMEs, MEs, and MIs for DD compared to BMD were summed for assays performed on three MHA brands (Remel, HD, and BD). The table summarizes χ 2 analyses for <t>each</t> <t>antimicrobial,</t> testing whether errors are under- or over-represented for DD performed on three different MHA brands. P -value <0.05 was considered significant. Blue, agreement between methods; red, error between methods. #, number.
    Custom Frozen Reference Bmd Panels, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pmc11837569-181-13-20?v=Thermo+Fisher
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    custom frozen reference bmd panels - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    reference bmd  (Laboratory Specialists Inc)
    90
    Laboratory Specialists Inc reference bmd
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Reference Bmd, supplied by Laboratory Specialists Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pmc11837567-78-17-0?v=Laboratory+Specialists+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    reference bmd - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    contribution to bmd reference testing  (Eurofins)
    90
    Eurofins contribution to bmd reference testing
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Contribution To Bmd Reference Testing, supplied by Eurofins, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pm39324811-178-10-3?v=Eurofins
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    contribution to bmd reference testing - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    bmd reference testing  (Gradientech)
    90
    Gradientech bmd reference testing
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Bmd Reference Testing, supplied by Gradientech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pm39324811-77-13-11?v=Gradientech
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    bmd reference testing - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    reference bmd panels  (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute)
    90
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute reference bmd panels
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Reference Bmd Panels, supplied by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pm39297627-53-12-22?v=Clinical+and+Laboratory+Standards+Institute
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    reference bmd panels - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    bmd reference phantom mindways software  (Mindways Software)
    90
    Mindways Software bmd reference phantom mindways software
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    Bmd Reference Phantom Mindways Software, supplied by Mindways Software, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pm38548236-50-25-28?v=Mindways+Software
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    bmd reference phantom mindways software - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    96-well frozen reference broth microdilution (bmd) panels in cation-adjusted mueller-hinton broth (camhb)  (Thermo Fisher)
    90
    Thermo Fisher 96-well frozen reference broth microdilution (bmd) panels in cation-adjusted mueller-hinton broth (camhb)
    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference <t>BMD</t> <t>and</t> <t>ComASP</t> (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).
    96 Well Frozen Reference Broth Microdilution (Bmd) Panels In Cation Adjusted Mueller Hinton Broth (Camhb), supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/reference+bmd/pm38534103-42-13-16?v=Thermo+Fisher
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    96-well frozen reference broth microdilution (bmd) panels in cation-adjusted mueller-hinton broth (camhb) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Comparison of error rates for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX DD as compared to BMD, all BCC isolates. VMEs, MEs, and MIs for DD compared to BMD were summed for assays performed on three MHA brands (Remel, HD, and BD). The table summarizes χ 2 analyses for each antimicrobial, testing whether errors are under- or over-represented for DD performed on three different MHA brands. P -value <0.05 was considered significant. Blue, agreement between methods; red, error between methods. #, number.

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for Burkholderia cepacia complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.01480-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of error rates for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX DD as compared to BMD, all BCC isolates. VMEs, MEs, and MIs for DD compared to BMD were summed for assays performed on three MHA brands (Remel, HD, and BD). The table summarizes χ 2 analyses for each antimicrobial, testing whether errors are under- or over-represented for DD performed on three different MHA brands. P -value <0.05 was considered significant. Blue, agreement between methods; red, error between methods. #, number.

    Article Snippet: For CF isolates, testing was performed from June 2022 to December 2022 using custom frozen reference BMD panels prepared by ThermoFisher with the same antimicrobial dilution ranges as listed above.

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of error rates for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX DD as compared to BMD, CF vs non-CF isolates. VMEs, MEs, and MIs for DD compared to BMD were summed for assays performed on three MHA brands (Remel, HD, and BD). The table summarizes χ 2 analyses for each antimicrobial, testing whether errors are under- or over-represented for DD performed on three different MHA brands. P -value <0.05 was considered significant, and values <0.05 are highlighted red in the table. Blue, agreement between methods; red, error between methods. #, number.

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: Evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for Burkholderia cepacia complex isolates from people with and without cystic fibrosis

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.01480-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of error rates for CAZ, LVX, MEM, MIN, and TMP-SMX DD as compared to BMD, CF vs non-CF isolates. VMEs, MEs, and MIs for DD compared to BMD were summed for assays performed on three MHA brands (Remel, HD, and BD). The table summarizes χ 2 analyses for each antimicrobial, testing whether errors are under- or over-represented for DD performed on three different MHA brands. P -value <0.05 was considered significant, and values <0.05 are highlighted red in the table. Blue, agreement between methods; red, error between methods. #, number.

    Article Snippet: For CF isolates, testing was performed from June 2022 to December 2022 using custom frozen reference BMD panels prepared by ThermoFisher with the same antimicrobial dilution ranges as listed above.

    Techniques: Comparison

    Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference BMD and ComASP (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Example picture of A. baumannii read by reference BMD and ComASP (red circle indicates MIC) (a) Reference BMD: Cefiderocol MIC = 64 µg/mL, (b) ComASP: Cefiderocol MIC = 128 µg/ml (MIC by CLSI read = 8 µg/mL).

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques:

    Summary of ComASP using 2 different reading methods compared to CLSI BMD MIC by bacterial species for combined clinical and challenge organisms (category agreement and errors based on FDA breakpoints) <xref ref-type= a , b " width="100%" height="100%">

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Summary of ComASP using 2 different reading methods compared to CLSI BMD MIC by bacterial species for combined clinical and challenge organisms (category agreement and errors based on FDA breakpoints) a , b

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Inhibition

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 210 Enterobacterales* (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; FDA/CLSI Breakpoints [indicated with red-dotted lines]).

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 210 Enterobacterales* (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; FDA/CLSI Breakpoints [indicated with red-dotted lines]).

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 126 P . aeruginosa (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 126 P . aeruginosa (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 92 A . baumannii (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 92 A . baumannii (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method) (a) FDA Breakpoints (indicated with red lines). (b) CLSI Breakpoints (indicated with red-dotted lines).

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 40 S . maltophilia (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; CLSI breakpoint [indicated with red-dotted line]).

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for 40 S . maltophilia (combined clinical and challenge isolates; ComASP reading method; CLSI breakpoint [indicated with red-dotted line]).

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Comparison

    Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for Enterobacterales species that are not FDA clinically indicated (combined clinical and challenge isolates) (a) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, CLSI Read, EA = 76.7% (b) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, ComASP Read, EA = 95.3%.

    Journal: Journal of Clinical Microbiology

    Article Title: A multicenter performance evaluation of cefiderocol MIC results: ComASP in comparison to CLSI broth microdilution

    doi: 10.1128/jcm.00926-24

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of ComASP MIC distribution to BMD MIC distribution for Enterobacterales species that are not FDA clinically indicated (combined clinical and challenge isolates) (a) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, CLSI Read, EA = 76.7% (b) Consolidated Enterobacterales (non-clinically indicated species)*, ComASP Read, EA = 95.3%.

    Article Snippet: Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Westlake, OH, USA, performed testing of reference BMD for all clinical isolates and both reference BMD and ComASP (using the same initial inoculum) for challenge isolates ( ).

    Techniques: Comparison