Goldstein J, Guarneri J J, Della-Latta P, Scherer J
J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Apr;15(4):654-9. doi: 10.1128/jcm.15.4.654-659.1982.
Studies were performed to evaluate the use of the Enteric-Tek (ET) and the AutoMicrobic system (AMS) for the identification of 201 Enterobacteriaceae freshly isolated from clinical specimens. All test systems were inoculated simultaneously from the same MacConkey agar plate. Organisms were also identified with conventional media. Identifications with the ET and AMS agreed with those made with conventional biochemicals 97% of the time. At a 95% confidence level, the ET was able to identify 75% of the isolates within 18 h without the aid of additional biochemical tests; the AMS identified 92% in 8 h. Technologist time needed for identifications made with the AMS was reduced approximately 57% compared with the ET. In all instances in which the AMS identification disagreed with the conventional, the ET identified the organism correctly. Similarly, organisms misidentified by the ET were correctly identified by the AMS. The data suggest that the AMS and ET identify clinical isolates with comparable accuracy; however, the AMS offers a significant savings in time.
开展了多项研究,以评估使用肠道技术(ET)系统和自动微生物系统(AMS)对201株从临床标本中新鲜分离出的肠杆菌科细菌进行鉴定的情况。所有测试系统均同时从同一麦康凯琼脂平板上接种。这些微生物也使用传统培养基进行鉴定。ET系统和AMS系统的鉴定结果与传统生化鉴定结果在97%的情况下一致。在95%的置信水平下,ET系统能够在无需额外生化试验辅助的情况下,在18小时内鉴定出75%的分离株;AMS系统在8小时内鉴定出92%。与ET系统相比,使用AMS系统进行鉴定所需的技术人员时间减少了约57%。在所有AMS系统鉴定结果与传统鉴定结果不一致的情况下,ET系统都能正确鉴定出该微生物。同样,被ET系统误鉴定的微生物也能被AMS系统正确鉴定。数据表明,AMS系统和ET系统在鉴定临床分离株方面具有相当的准确性;然而,AMS系统在时间上有显著节省。