Literature DB >> 3897264

Evaluation of the Quantum II yeast identification system.

T E Kiehn, F F Edwards, D Tom, G Lieberman, E M Bernard, D Armstrong.   

Abstract

We compared three methods for identifying clinical yeast isolates: Abbott Quantum II, API 20C, and a modified BBL Minitek system. The API 20C and modified Minitek systems agreed on the identification of 243 of 245 yeasts (99.2%). The Quantum II system correctly identified 197 (80.4%), incorrectly identified 19 (7.8%), and did not identify 29 (11.8%) of the yeasts. Most of the misidentifications with the Quantum II occurred because assimilation or biochemical results were false-positive. Sixteen different species of yeasts and 16 different Quantum II substrates contributed to the discrepancies. On retesting with the Quantum II, 31% of the discrepant strains were correctly identified, while the remaining 69% were incorrectly identified or were not identified. Erroneous biochemical and assimilation results were also noted with yeasts that were correctly identified by the Quantum II system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3897264      PMCID: PMC268362          DOI: 10.1128/jcm.22.2.216-219.1985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of the modified API 20C system for identification of clinically important yeasts.

Authors:  W J Buesching; K Kurek; G D Roberts
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Collaborative evaluation of the Abbott yeast identification system.

Authors:  B H Cooper; S Prowant; B Alexander; D H Brunson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Fungemia in the immunocompromised host. Changing patterns, antigenemia, high mortality.

Authors:  F Meunier-Carpentier; T E Kiehn; D Armstrong
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  The prevalence of yeasts in clinical specimens from cancer patients.

Authors:  T E Kiehn; F F Edwards; D Armstrong
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1980-04       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Evaluation of the new API 20C strip for yeast identification against a conventional method.

Authors:  G A Land; B A Harrison; K L Hulme; B H Cooper; J C Byrd
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Further modifications of the auxanographic method for identification of yeasts.

Authors:  P A Mickelsen; L R McCarthy; M A Propst
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 5.948

  6 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  Automated systems for identification of microorganisms.

Authors:  C E Stager; J R Davis
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Rapid identification of yeasts by semi-automated and conventional methods.

Authors:  S M Qadri; D J Flournoy; S G Qadri; E G Ramirez
Journal:  Med Microbiol Immunol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Uncommon yeastlike zoopathogens and commercial systems for their identification.

Authors:  G A Land; I F Salkin
Journal:  Mycopathologia       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.574

4.  Comparison of the Quantum II, API Yeast Ident, and AutoMicrobic systems for identification of clinical yeast isolates.

Authors:  M A Pfaller; T Preston; M Bale; F P Koontz; B A Body
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 5.948

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.