Holmes B, Dowling J, Lapage S P
J Clin Pathol. 1979 Jan;32(1):78-85. doi: 10.1136/jcp.32.1.78.
Since the recent introduction of the Roche Oxi/Ferm Tube to the UK two identification schemes have been developed by the manufacturer for use with the kit. We evaluated the success of these two schemes in identifying 222 predominantly culture collection strains belonging to 45 taxa of non-fermenters and nine taxa of oxidase-positive fermenters. The strains were chosen to represent all the taxa included in the two identification schemes developed by the manufacturer and we have therefore been able to assess the overall success of identification by the two schemes. Since, however, our choice of strains does not reflect their incidence in clinical material, our identification rates are not necessarily those that might be obtained in a routine clinical laboratory. The most advanced identification scheme so far developed for the Oxi/Ferm Tube (CCIS System 1977-1432) allowed 62% of the 222 strains to be correctly identified although a disturbing feature was that more of the strains that were not correctly identified were incorrectly identified (24%) rather than not identified (14%); these figures represent an improvement over the earlier identification scheme (CCIS System 1976-621-74346) for which the corresponding figures were 56%, 32%, and 12%. CCIS System 1977-1432 seems likely to give a better performance in a routine clinical laboratory than in this study since for those taxa which, we would judge from the material sent to us for identification, are most commonly seen in a routine laboratory (Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, A. lwoffii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P. fluorescens, P. maltophilia, P. pseudoalcaligenes, and P. putida) 89% were correctly identified, none remained unidentified, and 11% were incorrectly identified. Thirty strains, each of a different taxon, were tested in triplicate to assess the reproducibility of reactions in the Oxi/Ferm Tube.
自从罗氏氧化/发酵管最近引入英国以来,制造商已开发出两种鉴定方案用于该试剂盒。我们评估了这两种方案在鉴定222株主要来自培养物保藏中心的菌株方面的成功率,这些菌株属于45个非发酵菌分类单元和9个氧化酶阳性发酵菌分类单元。选择这些菌株是为了代表制造商开发的两种鉴定方案中包含的所有分类单元,因此我们能够评估这两种方案鉴定的总体成功率。然而,由于我们选择的菌株不能反映它们在临床材料中的发生率,我们的鉴定率不一定是常规临床实验室可能获得的鉴定率。迄今为止为氧化/发酵管开发的最先进的鉴定方案(CCIS系统1977 - 1432)能正确鉴定222株菌株中的62%,尽管一个令人不安的特征是,未被正确鉴定的菌株中更多的是被错误鉴定(24%)而不是未被鉴定(14%);这些数字比早期的鉴定方案(CCIS系统1976 - 621 - 74346)有所改进,早期方案的相应数字分别为56%、32%和12%。CCIS系统1977 - 1432在常规临床实验室中的表现可能会比本研究中更好,因为从我们收到用于鉴定的材料判断,对于那些在常规实验室中最常见的分类单元(醋酸钙不动杆菌、鲁氏不动杆菌、铜绿假单胞菌、荧光假单胞菌、嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌、假产碱假单胞菌和恶臭假单胞菌),89%被正确鉴定,没有一个未被鉴定,11%被错误鉴定。对30个不同分类单元的菌株进行了三次重复测试,以评估氧化/发酵管中反应的可重复性。