Suggestions(5)
Exact(10)
MICs were determined and interpreted by using the MIC interpretive criteria for Enterobacteriaceae recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (20– 20).
The difference between the two spectra (real-artificial) was then analysed and interpreted by using results from a previous i.r.r
The AC/DC electrical conductivities as function frequency/temperatures, respectively, parallel/series dielectric properties (real/imaginary parts) have investigated and interpreted by using the two-probe electrical conductivity measurement.
PFGE patterns were initially visually assessed and interpreted by using the criteria established by Tenover et al. [ 24].
MICs were determined for 15 antimicrobial agents and interpreted by using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria when available (Table 1) (7, 13 ).
MICs of antimicrobial drugs were determined by agar dilution and interpreted by using revised Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute breakpoints (5 ).
Similar(50)
MICs for the antimicrobial agents were determined at the Central Microbiology Institute (CMI; Portland, OR, USA) by using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution method (14 ) and were interpreted by using CLSI breakpoints (15 ).
Reference interpretive criteria for C. difficile susceptibility to clindamycin and moxifloxacin were used; MICs for levofloxacin and gatifloxacin were interpreted by using criteria for moxifloxacin (13 ).
This phenomenon was due to the SME of the prestrained wires and can be interpreted by using a newly developed phase stress displacement diagram.
The observations and interviews were interpreted by using the grounded theory, a so-called constant comparative method.
Antimicrobial drug susceptibility was determined by using an agar disk diffusion method, and results were interpreted by using MIC breakpoints recommended for other oxidative gram-negative bacilli by the Comité de l'Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie (Paris, France) (6 ).
More suggestions(3)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com