Suppr超能文献

自动扫描自动进样系统用于革兰氏阴性杆菌快速鉴定及药敏试验的评估。

Evaluation of the Autoscan Walkaway system for rapid identification and susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli.

作者信息

Kelly M T, Leicester C

机构信息

Microbiology Department, Metro-McNair Clinical Laboratories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Jun;30(6):1568-71. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.6.1568-1571.1992.

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of the Autoscan Walkaway (W/A) system (MicroScan, Sacramento, Calif.) in conjunction with the fluorometric Neg Combo panels for rapid identification and susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacilli. Fermentative and nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli were tested in parallel with the W/A system and the Cathra Repliscan replicator (C/R) system (Cathra, St. Paul, Minn.). Conventional biochemical testing and agar dilution testing were used to resolve the identification and susceptibility testing discrepancies. Of 495 clinical isolates tested, 445 (90%) were correctly identified by the W/A system and 483 (98%) were correctly identified by the C/R system. Repeat testing by using updated versions of the W/A system's computer identification software failed to demonstrate improved identification accuracy. For susceptibility testing, the W/A system demonstrated 5.6% total interpretative category errors, including only 0.9% major and very major errors. The comparative C/R system produced only 1% errors overall, including 0.2% major and very major errors. Although the W/A system is highly automated and is capable of producing results rapidly, our findings suggest that additional identification and susceptibility testing refinements are needed before the system will be suitable for routine use.

摘要

我们评估了自动扫描自动进样(W/A)系统(MicroScan,加利福尼亚州萨克拉门托)与荧光法阴性菌组合板联合使用时,对革兰氏阴性杆菌进行快速鉴定和药敏试验的性能。将发酵型和非发酵型革兰氏阴性杆菌与W/A系统和Cathra Repliscan复制仪(C/R)系统(Cathra,明尼苏达州圣保罗)并行进行检测。采用传统生化检测和琼脂稀释检测来解决鉴定和药敏试验的差异。在检测的495株临床分离株中,W/A系统正确鉴定出445株(90%),C/R系统正确鉴定出483株(98%)。使用W/A系统计算机鉴定软件的更新版本进行重复检测,未能显示出鉴定准确性的提高。对于药敏试验,W/A系统的总解释类别错误率为5.6%,其中主要和非常主要错误仅为0.9%。相比之下,C/R系统的总体错误率仅为1%,其中主要和非常主要错误为0.2%。尽管W/A系统高度自动化且能够快速产生结果,但我们的研究结果表明,在该系统适合常规使用之前,还需要进一步改进鉴定和药敏试验方法。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验