Gulletta E, Amato G, Nani E, Covelli I
Eur J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Jun;4(3):282-5. doi: 10.1007/BF02013653.
The RapID Ana and the API 20A systems for identification of anaerobic bacteria were compared for accuracy on 108 recent isolates of gram-negative and gram-positive anaerobic bacteria. No additional tests or gas-liquid chromatography were used. RapID Ana identified 91.7% of the isolated strains to species level and 6.5% to genus level but failed to identify 1.8% of the total strains. API 20A identified 85.2% of strains to species level, 3.7% to genus level but failed to identify 11.1% of the total strains. Although the difference between the identification rates of the two systems was not significant, it was concluded that RapID Ana was easier to perform and interpret.
对用于鉴定厌氧菌的RapID Ana系统和API 20A系统在108株近期分离的革兰氏阴性和革兰氏阳性厌氧菌上的准确性进行了比较。未使用额外的检测或气液色谱法。RapID Ana系统将91.7%的分离菌株鉴定到种水平,6.5%鉴定到属水平,但未能鉴定出1.8%的总菌株。API 20A系统将85.2%的菌株鉴定到种水平,3.7%鉴定到属水平,但未能鉴定出11.1%的总菌株。尽管这两个系统的鉴定率差异不显著,但得出的结论是,RapID Ana系统操作和解释起来更容易。