用于艰难梭菌鉴定的Minitek厌氧II型系统、API An-Ident系统和RapID ANA系统的比较

Comparison of Minitek Anaerobe II, API An-Ident, and RapID ANA systems for identification of Clostridium difficile.

作者信息

Bate G

出版信息

Am J Clin Pathol. 1986 Jun;85(6):716-8. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/85.6.716.

DOI:10.1093/ajcp/85.6.716

Abstract

Three commercial anaerobic systems, Minitek (BBL Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, MD), API An-Ident (Analytab Products, Plainview, NY), and RapID ANA (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Decatur, GA) were evaluated for ability to identify 45 Clostridium difficile isolates accurately. Minitek correctly identified 66% of C. difficile isolates to species, 27% were incompletely identified, and 7% were misidentified. Most of the discrepancies with Minitek were due to false negative biochemical results. API An-Ident correctly identified 9% C. difficile isolates to species, 89% were incompletely identified, and 2% were misidentified. Most of the API An-Ident discrepancies were due to the data base, which distinguished poorly between C. difficile, Clostridium hastiforme, and Clostridium sporogenes. RapID ANA correctly identified 100% of C. difficile isolates.

摘要

对三种商用厌氧系统Minitek（BBL微生物系统公司，马里兰州科基斯维尔）、API An-Ident（Analytab产品公司，纽约州普莱恩维尤）和RapID ANA（创新诊断系统公司，佐治亚州迪凯特）进行了评估，以确定其准确鉴定45株艰难梭菌分离株的能力。Minitek能将66%的艰难梭菌分离株正确鉴定到种，27%鉴定不完全，7%鉴定错误。与Minitek的大多数差异是由于生化结果假阴性。API An-Ident能将9%的艰难梭菌分离株正确鉴定到种，89%鉴定不完全，2%鉴定错误。API An-Ident的大多数差异是由于数据库，该数据库难以区分艰难梭菌、梭形梭菌和产芽孢梭菌。RapID ANA能将100%的艰难梭菌分离株正确鉴定。