Phillips I, Taylor E, Eykyn S
Infection. 1980;8 Suppl 2:S155-8. doi: 10.1007/BF01639881.
In order to assess the rapid laboratory diagnosis of anaerobic pyogenic infection, we compared the results of Gram stains, ultra-violet fluorescence and gas chromatography, all performed directly on pus, with those of anaerobic culture. Fluorescence was most rapid but there were many negatives unless Bacteroides melaninogenicus was present. Gas chromatography was rapid and sensitive but there were some false negatives, often in pure Bacteroides fragilis infection, and a few false positives. Gram-staining was also rapid, but only helpful on its own when there were large numbers of organisms of mixed or characteristic morphology. The three methods together almost always provided a reliable and rapid presumptive diagnosis of anaerobic pyogenic infection.
为评估厌氧性化脓性感染的快速实验室诊断方法，我们将直接对脓液进行的革兰氏染色、紫外线荧光检测和气相色谱分析结果与厌氧培养结果进行了比较。荧光检测最为快速，但除非存在产黑色素拟杆菌，否则会有许多阴性结果。气相色谱分析快速且灵敏，但存在一些假阴性结果，常在单纯脆弱拟杆菌感染时出现，也有少数假阳性结果。革兰氏染色同样快速，但只有在存在大量形态各异或具有特征性形态的微生物时，其本身才有用。这三种方法结合起来几乎总能对厌氧性化脓性感染做出可靠且快速的初步诊断。
