Stoakes L, Kelly T, Manarin K, Schieven B, Lannigan R, Groves D, Hussain Z
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Victoria Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.
J Clin Microbiol. 1990 Jun;28(6):1135-8. doi: 10.1128/jcm.28.6.1135-1138.1990.
Rapid anaerobe identification (MicroScan) panels (4 h) were evaluated both visually and by the AutoScan-4, a computer-controlled microplate reader. The results of both reading methods were compared with identifications obtained by the conventional (Virginia Polytechnic Institute) method. In total, 237 anaerobes were tested. Correct identifications were obtained for 166 strains (70%) by visual reading and 157 strains (66.2%) by the AutoScan-4. Supplementary tests resulted in 80.1 and 76.7% total correct identifications, respectively. Comparison of the two reading methods revealed complete agreement for 169 strains. Differences between the two reading methods were due to difficulties in reading specific reactions. This was especially true with the clostridial species. The performance of the MicroScan system in the identification of anaerobic bacteria appears comparable to that of other 4-h identification systems for anaerobes, but this system shows significant variance from the conventional system. Improvements in the trays and data base are required before the system can be recommended for routine use.
对快速厌氧菌鉴定（MicroScan）平板（4小时）进行了目视评估，并通过计算机控制的酶标仪AutoScan-4进行评估。将两种读取方法的结果与通过传统方法（弗吉尼亚理工学院）获得的鉴定结果进行比较。总共测试了237株厌氧菌。通过目视读取，166株菌株（70%）获得了正确鉴定，通过AutoScan-4，157株菌株（66.2%）获得了正确鉴定。补充试验分别使总正确鉴定率达到80.1%和76.7%。两种读取方法的比较显示，169株菌株的结果完全一致。两种读取方法之间的差异是由于读取特定反应存在困难。梭菌属尤其如此。MicroScan系统在厌氧菌鉴定方面的性能似乎与其他4小时厌氧菌鉴定系统相当，但该系统与传统系统存在显著差异。在该系统被推荐用于常规使用之前，需要对托盘和数据库进行改进。
