...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Routine evaluation of BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media.
【24h】

Routine evaluation of BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media.

机译:Bactec NR-16A和NR-17A培养基的常规评估。

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media were more effective than the BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media in recovering organisms from the blood of patients undergoing antimicrobial therapy. A total of 986 sets of four blood culture bottles were compared, giving 141, 174, 93, and 104 isolates with BACTEC NR-6A, NR-16A, NR-7A, and NR-17A, respectively. BACTEC NR-6A and NR-7A media recovered 234 isolates, whereas BACTEC NR-16A and NR-17A media recovered 278 isolates. The recovery rate of bacteria when aerobic resin media were used was better than that with conventional aerobic media (P less than 0.001). The mean detection times were 51.5 and 69.7 h with NR-16A and NR-6A, respectively (P less than 0.01), whereas they were 68.2 and 71.3 h with NR-17A and NR-7A, respectively (P greater than 0.05). The small number of anaerobes recovered precluded a statistical comparison of relative recovery for that group of organisms.
机译:本研究的目的是确定Bactec NR-16A和NR-17A培养基比Bactec NR-6A和NR-7A培养基更有效地在从接受抗微生物治疗的患者的血液中回收生物体。比较了986套四组血液培养瓶,分别与Bactec NR-6a,NR-16a,NR-7a和NR-17a分别给出141,174,93和104分离株。 Bactec NR-6A和NR-7A培养基回收了234个分离物,而Bactec NR-16A和NR-17A培养基回收278分离物。使用有氧树脂培养基时,细菌的回收率优于常规有氧介质(P小于0.001)。平均检测时间分别为NR-16A和NR-6A的51.5和69.7小时(P小于0.01),而它们分别为68.2和71.3小时,分别为NR-17A和NR-7A(P大于0.05)。少量的厌氧被恢复排除了该组生物体的相对恢复的统计比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号