Holmes B, Dawson C A
J Clin Pathol. 1985 Aug;38(8):937-41. doi: 10.1136/jcp.38.8.937.
One hundred strains were referred to us for identification because they apparently could not be identified satisfactorily with the API 20E system (appareils et procédés d'identification). The inability to identify 31 strains was due primarily to failure to follow the manufacturer's instructions. Twenty six further strains were found to have been correctly identified by the sender's own API 20E results, so that only the remaining 43 strains definitely fell into the category for which our identification service was intended. Eighteen of the 43 strains not identified by the sender were identified by us using the API 20E system, and several possible reasons are given to explain the differences in these results. The remaining 25 strains either could not be identified by us on the API 20E system or, in the case of 13, they could not be identified by our conventional system and therefore no comparison could be made. The average interlaboratory probability of errors for the API 20E tests was 6.1%.
有100株菌株被送到我们这里进行鉴定，因为它们显然无法通过API 20E系统（鉴定仪器和方法）得到令人满意的鉴定结果。31株菌株无法鉴定主要是因为未遵循制造商的说明。另外26株菌株经发送方自己的API 20E结果显示已被正确鉴定，所以只有剩下的43株菌株确实属于我们鉴定服务所针对的类别。发送方未鉴定出的43株菌株中有18株被我们用API 20E系统鉴定出来了，文中给出了几个可能的原因来解释这些结果的差异。剩下的25株菌株要么我们无法用API 20E系统鉴定出来，要么对于其中13株，我们的传统系统也无法鉴定，因此无法进行比较。API 20E测试的实验室间平均误差概率为6.1%。
