Hanson C W, Cassorla R, Martin W J
J Clin Microbiol. 1979 Jul;10(1):14-8. doi: 10.1128/jcm.10.1.14-18.1979.
A comparison of the API and Minitek methods of biochemical testing was made on a variety of anaerobic bacteria. Although API and Minitek results were not compared to more standardized or conventional procedures of identification, multiple repeat testing of the two systems was done on routine clinical isolates and known organisms to determine (i) whether the reactions were reliably consistent, (ii) the ease of reading the two systems with respect to the frequency of questionable results, and (iii) the percentage of routine clinical isolates for which each system yielded an identification. The Minitek system gave a much lower incidence of difficult to interpret reactions. The two systems were comparable in terms of reproducibility and capability of yielding an identification of the anaerobic gram-negative bacilli and Clostridium species, but were unsatisfactory for routine use on most of the other anaerobic bacteria isolated.
对多种厌氧菌进行了API和Minitek生化检测方法的比较。虽然未将API和Minitek的结果与更标准化或传统的鉴定程序进行比较,但对常规临床分离株和已知菌株对这两种系统进行了多次重复检测,以确定:(i)反应是否可靠一致;(ii)就可疑结果的频率而言,读取这两种系统的难易程度;(iii)每种系统能够鉴定出的常规临床分离株的百分比。Minitek系统产生难以解释的反应的发生率要低得多。这两种系统在再现性以及对厌氧革兰氏阴性杆菌和梭菌属进行鉴定的能力方面具有可比性,但对于大多数分离出的其他厌氧菌用于常规检测并不令人满意。