Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology

, Volume 2, Issue 6, pp 529–533 | Cite as

Performance of two four-hour identification systems with atypical strains ofEnterobacteriaceae

  • M. Altwegg
Original Articles

Abstract

Two four-hour systems (Rapid 20E and Micro-ID) for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae were evaluated using 66 strains isolated from clinical specimens which could not be identified by conventional methods. API 20E was used as reference method. Both systems had an acceptable identification rate (84.8 % for Rapid 20E and 74.2 % for Micro-ID). After referral to API's computer facilities the identification rate of Rapid 20E rose to 92.4 %. Micro-ID incorrectly identified 16.7 % of the strains and Rapid 20E only 1.5 %. On the other hand, no identification was achieved in 13.6 % of the strains using Rapid 20E versus 6 % using Micro-ID. On the basis of these findings Rapid 20E is considered the more suitable system for the rapid identification ofEnterobacteriaceae strains which cannot be identified by conventional methods.

Keywords

Internal Medicine Identification System Conventional Method Identification Rate Reference Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Appelbaum, P. C., Arthur, R. R., Parker, M. E., Shugax, G. L., von Kuster, L. C., Charache, P.: Comparison of three methods for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 1: 76–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barry, A. L., Badal, R. E.: Rapid identification ofEnterobacteriaceae with the Micro-ID system versus API 20E and conventional media. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1979, 10: 293–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruckner, D. A., Clark, V., Martin, W. J.: Comparison of Enteric-Tek with API 20E and conventional methods for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 15: 16–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, P. B., Tomfohrde, K. M., Rhoden, D. L., Balows, A.: API system: a multitube micromethod for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Applied Microbiology 1972, 24: 449–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blazevic, D. J., Mackay, D. L., Warwood, N. M.: Comparison of Micro-ID and API 20E systems for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1979, 9: 605–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edberg, S. C., Atkinson, B., Chambers, C., Moore, M. H., Palumbo, L., Zorzon, C. F., Singer, J. M.: Clinical evaluation of the Micro-ID, API 20E, and conventional media systems for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1979, 10: 161–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, M. T., Latimer, J. M.: Comparison of the AutoMicrobic system with API, Micro-ID, Micro-Media systems, and conventional methods for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1980, 12: 659–662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buesching, W. J., Rhoden, D. L., Esaias, A. O., Smith, P. B., Washington, J. A.: Evaluation of the modified Micro-ID system for identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1979, 10: 454–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gooch, W. M., Hill, G. A.: Comparison of Micro-ID and API 20E in rapid identification ofEnterobacteriaceae. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1982, 15: 885–890.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Vieweg Publishing 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Altwegg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical MicrobiologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations