Hussain Z, Lannigan R, Schieven B C, Stoakes L, Kelly T, Groves D
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Victoria Hospital Corporation, London, Ontario, Canada.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987 May;7(1):69-72. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(87)90073-3.
Two micromethods for the identification of anaerobes, one requiring growth (Minitek) and one nongrowth dependent (RapID-ANA), were compared with a conventional identification culture system. For 222 clinical isolates, RapID-ANA agreed with PRAS in 187 (84%) and Minitek agreed for only 170 strains (76%). Both systems identified common isolates well, but encountered some difficulty in identifying less common clostridia and Gram-negative bacilli. Although adequate for most strains, the results from both systems should be interpreted with caution, particularly for less frequently isolated species.
将两种用于厌氧菌鉴定的微量方法（一种需要培养（Minitek），另一种不依赖培养（RapID-ANA））与传统的鉴定培养系统进行了比较。对于222株临床分离株，RapID-ANA与PRAS在187株（84%）上结果一致，而Minitek仅在170株（76%）上结果一致。两种系统对常见分离株的鉴定效果都很好，但在鉴定不太常见的梭菌和革兰氏阴性杆菌时遇到了一些困难。尽管这两种系统对大多数菌株来说足够了，但对其结果的解释都应谨慎，尤其是对于那些分离频率较低的菌种。
