| Agar disk diffusion | simplicity of performance, low cost, flexibility, no special equipment required, suitable for lead identification | qualitative assay, poor level of reproducibility, diffusion of antimicrobial substances may be affected, applicable only to fast-growing bacteria | (17, 42, 43, 46, 47) |
| Agar well diffusion | simplicity of performance, low cost, more sensitive and more convenient than the disc variant for testing of cationic compounds | qualitative assay, poor level of reproducibility | (17, 43, 46,47) |
| Bioautography | simplicity of performance, little amount of sample required, rapid and inexpensive evaluation, suitable for screening of antimicrobials in mixtures | qualitative assay, difficult to standardise, not suitable for synergy studies, alteration of compounds during the fractional phase | (49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) |
| Agar dilution | quantitative results, a number of bacterial species may be applied to a single dish | laborious and time consuming method, the large amount of reagents and space required | (47, 59, 66, 67, 68) |
| Broth microdilution | quantitative results, convenience and time/cost effectiveness, capacity to test opaque materials, possible automation, the most consistent results, the killing effect can be assessed | the possibility of errors in solution preparation, relatively high amount of space and reagents required | (17, 47, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71) |
| Microfluidic methods | smaller volumes, short run time, higher sensitivity, potential for high throughput | specialised equipment needed, high-cost | (80, 81, 82, 83) |
