1887

Abstract

Summary

The recently-introduced semi-automated bacterial identification system, the Quantum II BID, is designed to identify fermentative and non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli in 4−5 h. The system was evaluated independently by the two participating laboratories. Inter-laboratory reproducibility was determined by testing 181 strains in each laboratory and found to be 97.8%. A further 893 organisms, comprising 417 fresh clinical isolates and 476 stock cultures, were then tested by the system in the two laboratories. Of the fresh clinical isolates, 95.7% yielded the same result as the comparative system used (API 20E) and 93.1% of the stock strains were assigned to their expected, previously established identity. Overall agreement between the two systems for all strains examined was 94.3%. There was no significant statistical difference between the results obtained in the two laboratories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-21-2-145
1986-03-01
2022-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/21/2/medmicro-21-2-145.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-21-2-145&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aldridge K. E., Gardner B. B., Clark S. J., Matsen J. M. 1978; Comparison MICRO-ID, API 20E, and conventional media systems in identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7:507–513
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry A. L., Badal R. E. 1979; Rapid identification of Enterobacteriaceae with the MICRO-ID system versus API 20E and conventional media. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 10:293–298
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruckner D. A., Clark V., Martin W. J. 1982; Comparison of Enterik-Tek with API 20E and conventional methods for identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 15:16–18
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Burdash N. M., Teti G., West M. E., Bannister E. R., Manos J. P. 1981; Evaluation of an automated, computerized system (Auto-Microbic System) for Enterobacteriaceae identification. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 13:331–334
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Edberg S. C., Atkinson B., Chambers C., Moore M. H., Palumbo L., Zorzon C. F., Singer J. M. 1979; Clinical evaluation of MICRO-ID, API 20E, and conventional media systems for identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 10:161–167
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayek L. J., Willis G. W. 1976; A comparison of two commercial methods for the identification of the Enterobacteriaceae-API 20E and the Enterotube—with conventional methods. Journal of Clinical Pathology 29:158–161
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Krieg N. R., Holt J G. (eds) 1984 Bergey′s Manual of systematic bacteriology vol. 1 Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. McCracken A. W., Martin W. J., McCarthy L. R., Schwab D. A., Cooper B. H., Helgeson N. G. P., Prowant S., Robson J. 1980; Evaluation of the MS2 system for rapid identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 12:684–689
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Stevens M. 1976 Some factors which affect test results in miniaturised microbiology test systems. In Johnston H. H., Newson S. W. B. (eds) Rapid methods and automation in microbiology Learned Information (Europe); Oxford: p. 67
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Stevens M., Feltham R. K. A., Schneider F., Grasmick C., Schaak F., Roos P. 1984; A collaborative evaluation of a rapid automated bacterial identification system: the Autobac IDX. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 3:419–423
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-21-2-145
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-21-2-145
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error