Pattyn S R, Ieven M, Buffet L
University Hospital Antwerpen, Edegem.
Acta Clin Belg. 1993;48(2):81-5. doi: 10.1080/17843286.1993.11718291.
The RAPID ID 32A and a rapid fermentation procedure were compared with a miniaturized standard procedure for the identification of 102 isolates of anaerobic bacteria belonging to 11 genera. The miniaturized standard procedure identified all 102 isolates at the genus level and 90 at the species level. The rapid fermentation procedure failed to identify 12 and 24 isolates at the genus and species levels respectively and is unsatisfactory. The RAPID ID 32A system misidentified 4 isolates (4%) at the genus level, 3 of which could have been avoided if the results of the Gram stain, the fundamental procedure in medical microbiology, had been taken into account. The system correctly identified 89 isolates at the species level. Since it does not produce species identifications within the genera Mobiluncus and Veillonella of which 7 and 2 isolates respectively were included in the study, the percentage of correct identifications at the species level is 96.7% (90/93). The RAPID ID 32A system is about 25 times more expensive than the miniaturized standard procedure if the investment for a gas chromatograph is not taken into account.
将RAPID ID 32A和一种快速发酵方法与一种小型化标准方法进行比较,以鉴定属于11个属的102株厌氧菌。小型化标准方法在属水平上鉴定出所有102株菌株,在种水平上鉴定出90株。快速发酵方法在属和种水平上分别未能鉴定出12株和24株菌株,结果不尽人意。RAPID ID 32A系统在属水平上错误鉴定了4株菌株(4%),如果考虑到医学微生物学的基本程序革兰氏染色的结果,其中3株本可避免。该系统在种水平上正确鉴定了89株菌株。由于该系统未对研究中分别包含7株和2株的动弯杆菌属和韦荣球菌属内的菌株进行种鉴定,因此种水平上的正确鉴定百分比为96.7%(90/93)。如果不考虑气相色谱仪的投资,RAPID ID 32A系统的成本约为小型化标准方法的25倍。