Literature DB >> 6756905

Comparison of three methods for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

P C Appelbaum, R R Arthur, M E Parker, G L Shugar, L C von Kuster, P Charache.   

Abstract

This study compares the ability of three commercial overnight methods, API 20E, Minitek and Enteric-Tek, to accurately and completely identify 368 clinically isolated Enterobacteriaceae without supplemental tests. Organisms included Escherichia coli (54 strains), Shigella spp. (7), Edwardsiella tarda (1), Salmonella enteritidis (10), Citrobacter spp. (30), Klebsiella spp. (55), Enterobacter spp. (68), Hafnia alvei (2), Serratia spp. (33), Proteus spp. (64), Morganella morganii (24), Providencia spp. (18), and Yersinia enterocolitica (2). Methods were those of the manufactures without supplemental tests. API 20E correctly identified 93.2% of strains to species and 3.3% to genus level only, with 3.0% as part of a spectrum of identifications, and 0.5% incorrect identifications. Minitek yielded 96.0% correct identifications to species and 0.5% to genus level only, with 2.5% spectrum identifications, and 1.0% incorrect identifications. Enteric-Tek correctly identified 97.0% of strains to species level with 3.0% spectrum identifications. API 20E identification of some Serratia and Citrobacter strains was to genus level only. Problem organisms for Minitek included Enterobacter agglomerans and Serratia marcescens. A comparison of these three commercial methods shows that all three have the ability to identify most clinically isolated Enterobacteriaceae without supplemental tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6756905     DOI: 10.1007/bf02014195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0722-2211            Impact factor:   3.267


  12 in total

1.  Evaluation of the R/B and Minitek systems for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  M Shayegani; M E Hubbard; T Hiscott; D McGlynn
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Clinical evaluation of the MICRO-ID, API 20E, and conventional media systems for identification of Enterobacteriacea.

Authors:  S C Edberg; B Atkinson; C Chambers; M H Moore; L Palumbo; C F Zorzon; J M Singer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1979-08       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Comparison of Micro-ID and API 20E systems for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  D J Blazevic; D L Mackay; N M Warwood
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Comparative study of three methods of identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  I Rutherford; V Moody; T L Gavan; L W Ayers; D L Taylor
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Evaluation of the Minitek system for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  T E Kiehn; K Brennan; P D Ellner
Journal:  Appl Microbiol       Date:  1974-10

6.  API system: a multitube micromethod for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  P B Smith; K M Tomfohrde; D L Rhoden; A Balows
Journal:  Appl Microbiol       Date:  1972-09

7.  Clinical evaluation of the minitek differential system for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  P J Finklea; M S Cole; T M Sodeman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Four methods for identification of gram-negative nonfermenting rods: organisms more commonly encountered in clinical specimens.

Authors:  P C Appelbaum; J Stavitz; M S Bentz; L C von Kuster
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Evaluation of commercial systems for the identification of clinical yeast isolates.

Authors:  P I Bowman; D G Ahearn
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Comparison of micro-ID, API 20E, and conventional media systems in identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  K E Aldridge; B B Gardner; S J Clark; J M Matsen
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 5.948

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of identification of Enterobacteriaceae by API 20E and Sensititre Autoidentification System.

Authors:  J G Barr; G M Hogg; E T Smyth; A M Emmerson
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Evaluation of Cathra system for identifying gram negative aerobic bacteria.

Authors:  J M Ling; L C Zhang; Y W Hui; G L French
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Evaluation of the Micro-ID, the API 20E and the Rapid 20E for same-day identification of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  P C Appelbaum; M R Jacobs; M K Buick; M M Flanagan; G A Gymer
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 3.267

4.  Performance of two four-hour identification systems with atypical strains of Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  M Altwegg
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 3.267

5.  Evaluation of the DMS Rapid E system for identification of clinical isolates of the family Enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  M W Keville; G V Doern
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Cysteine catabolism and cysteine desulfhydrase (CdsH/STM0458) in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium.

Authors:  Tamiko Oguri; Barbara Schneider; Larry Reitzer
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 3.490

7.  Evaluation of RapID onE system for identification of 379 strains in the family Enterobacteriaceae and oxidase-negative, gram-negative nonfermenters.

Authors:  T T Kitch; M R Jacobs; P C Appelbaum
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Comparison of three methods for anaerobe identification.

Authors:  P C Appelbaum; C S Kaufmann; J C Keifer; H J Venbrux
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 5.948

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.