Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens

Context: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infectious diseases encountered in clinical practice. Emerging resistance of the uropathogens to the antimicrobial agents due to biofilm formation is a matter of concern while treating symptomatic UTI. However, studies comparing differ...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pragyan Swagatika Panda, Uma Chaudhary, Surya K Dube
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2016-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2016;volume=59;issue=2;spage=177;epage=179;aulast=Panda
id doaj-c88cc2d396fe4f93ac9897dff90ccd72
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c88cc2d396fe4f93ac9897dff90ccd722020-11-24T22:35:50ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology0377-49292016-01-0159217717910.4103/0377-4929.182013Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogensPragyan Swagatika PandaUma ChaudharySurya K DubeContext: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infectious diseases encountered in clinical practice. Emerging resistance of the uropathogens to the antimicrobial agents due to biofilm formation is a matter of concern while treating symptomatic UTI. However, studies comparing different methods for detection of biofilm by uropathogens are scarce. Aims: To compare four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens. Settings and Design: Prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: Totally 300 isolates from urinary samples were analyzed for biofilm formation by four methods, that is, tissue culture plate (TCP) method, tube method (TM), Congo Red Agar (CRA) method and modified CRA (MCRA) method. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test was applied when two or more set of variables were compared. P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant. Considering TCP to be a gold standard method for our study we calculated other statistical parameters. Results: The rate of biofilm detection was 45.6%, 39.3% and 11% each by TCP, TM, CRA and MCRA methods, respectively. The difference between TCP and only CRA/MCRA was significant, but not that between TCP and TM. There was no difference in the rate of biofilm detection between CRA and MCRA in other isolates, but MCRA is superior to CRA for detection of the staphylococcal biofilm formation. Conclusions: TCP method is the ideal method for detection of bacterial biofilm formation by uropathogens. MCRA method is superior only to CRA for detection of staphylococcal biofilm formation.http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2016;volume=59;issue=2;spage=177;epage=179;aulast=PandaBiofilm, detection, four, methods, uropathogen
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pragyan Swagatika Panda
Uma Chaudhary
Surya K Dube
spellingShingle Pragyan Swagatika Panda
Uma Chaudhary
Surya K Dube
Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Biofilm, detection, four, methods, uropathogen
author_facet Pragyan Swagatika Panda
Uma Chaudhary
Surya K Dube
author_sort Pragyan Swagatika Panda
title Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
title_short Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
title_full Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
title_fullStr Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
title_sort comparison of four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
issn 0377-4929
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Context: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infectious diseases encountered in clinical practice. Emerging resistance of the uropathogens to the antimicrobial agents due to biofilm formation is a matter of concern while treating symptomatic UTI. However, studies comparing different methods for detection of biofilm by uropathogens are scarce. Aims: To compare four different methods for detection of biofilm formation by uropathogens. Settings and Design: Prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Materials and Methods: Totally 300 isolates from urinary samples were analyzed for biofilm formation by four methods, that is, tissue culture plate (TCP) method, tube method (TM), Congo Red Agar (CRA) method and modified CRA (MCRA) method. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test was applied when two or more set of variables were compared. P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant. Considering TCP to be a gold standard method for our study we calculated other statistical parameters. Results: The rate of biofilm detection was 45.6%, 39.3% and 11% each by TCP, TM, CRA and MCRA methods, respectively. The difference between TCP and only CRA/MCRA was significant, but not that between TCP and TM. There was no difference in the rate of biofilm detection between CRA and MCRA in other isolates, but MCRA is superior to CRA for detection of the staphylococcal biofilm formation. Conclusions: TCP method is the ideal method for detection of bacterial biofilm formation by uropathogens. MCRA method is superior only to CRA for detection of staphylococcal biofilm formation.
topic Biofilm, detection, four, methods, uropathogen
url http://www.ijpmonline.org/article.asp?issn=0377-4929;year=2016;volume=59;issue=2;spage=177;epage=179;aulast=Panda
work_keys_str_mv AT pragyanswagatikapanda comparisonoffourdifferentmethodsfordetectionofbiofilmformationbyuropathogens
AT umachaudhary comparisonoffourdifferentmethodsfordetectionofbiofilmformationbyuropathogens
AT suryakdube comparisonoffourdifferentmethodsfordetectionofbiofilmformationbyuropathogens
_version_ 1725722839892361216