Suppr超能文献

三种用于从伤口中回收需氧菌和厌氧菌的转运系统的比较。

Comparison of three transport systems for recovery of aerobes and anaerobes from wounds.

作者信息

McConville J H, Timmons R F, Hansen S L

出版信息

Am J Clin Pathol. 1979 Dec;72(6):968-71. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/72.6.968.

Abstract

A clinical evaluation of three commercially available transport systems (Anaerobic Specimen Collector, Becton-Dickenson; Anaswab, Scott Laboratories; and Trans-Cul, Wampole) was done, using as subjects 75 patients suspected of having infections. Holding times were purposely varied and ranged from 30 min to 48 hours. Totals of 22 aerobic species and 15 anaerobic species were isolated. There was essentially no difference among the three systems in the recoveries of aerobic or anaerobic organisms. Discrepancies appeared to be related to the order of collection and amount of clinical material available for culture. Time delay from collection to plating did not affect the recovery of aerobes or anaerobes. The three systems performed equally in the recovery of clinically significant pathogens from purulent clinical material.

摘要

对三种市售运输系统(厌氧标本采集器,贝克顿-迪金森公司;AnaSwab,斯科特实验室;以及Trans-Cul,万波公司)进行了临床评估,以75名疑似感染患者作为研究对象。故意改变保存时间,范围从30分钟到48小时。共分离出22种需氧菌和15种厌氧菌。在需氧或厌氧菌的回收率方面,这三种系统基本没有差异。差异似乎与采集顺序和可用于培养的临床材料数量有关。从采集到接种的时间延迟并不影响需氧菌或厌氧菌的回收率。在从脓性临床材料中回收具有临床意义的病原体方面,这三种系统表现相当。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验