Suppr超能文献

凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌鉴定方法的比较

Comparison of methods for the identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci.

作者信息

Cunha Maria de Lourdes R S, Sinzato Yuri K, Silveira Liciana V A

机构信息

Departamento de Microbiologia e Imunologia, Instituto de Biociéncias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, 18618-000 Botucatu, SP, Brazil.

出版信息

Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2004 Dec;99(8):855-60. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762004000800012. Epub 2005 Mar 4.

Abstract

Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) species identification is still difficult for most clinical laboratories. The scheme proposed by Kloos and Schleifer and modified by Bannerman is the reference method used for the identification of staphylococcal species and subspecies; however, this method is relatively laborious for routine use since it requires the utilization of a large number of biochemical tests. The objective of the present study was to compare four methods, i.e., the reference method, the API Staph system (bioMérieux) and two methods modified from the reference method in our laboratory (simplified method and disk method), in the identification of 100 CNS strains. Compared to the reference method, the simplified method and disk method correctly identified 100 and 99% of the CNS species, respectively, while this rate was 84% for the API Staph system. Inaccurate identification by the API Staph method was observed for Staphylococcus epidermidis (2.2%), S. hominis (25%), S. haemolyticus (37.5%), and S. warneri (47.1%). The simplified method using the simple identification scheme proposed in the present study was found to be efficient for all strains tested, with 100% sensitivity and specificity and proved to be available alternative for the identification of staphylococci, offering, higher reliability and lower cost than the currently available commercial systems. This method would be very useful in clinical microbiology laboratory, especially in places with limited resources.

摘要

对于大多数临床实验室而言,凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(CNS)的菌种鉴定仍然具有难度。由克洛斯和施莱费尔提出并经班纳曼修改的方案是用于葡萄球菌菌种和亚种鉴定的参考方法;然而,该方法在常规使用中相对繁琐,因为它需要进行大量的生化试验。本研究的目的是比较四种方法,即参考方法、API葡萄球菌系统(生物梅里埃公司)以及我们实验室从参考方法修改而来的两种方法(简化方法和纸片法),对100株CNS菌株进行鉴定。与参考方法相比,简化方法和纸片法分别正确鉴定了100%和99%的CNS菌种,而API葡萄球菌系统的这一比例为84%。API葡萄球菌方法对表皮葡萄球菌(2.2%)、人葡萄球菌(25%)、溶血葡萄球菌(37.5%)和沃氏葡萄球菌(47.1%)的鉴定不准确。本研究提出的使用简单鉴定方案的简化方法被发现对所有测试菌株均有效,具有100%的敏感性和特异性,并且被证明是葡萄球菌鉴定的一种可行替代方法,与目前可用的商业系统相比,具有更高的可靠性和更低的成本。该方法在临床微生物实验室中将非常有用,尤其是在资源有限的地方。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验