...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases: Official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of porphyrin-based, growth factor-based, and biochemical-based testing methods for identification of Haemophilus influenzae.
【24h】

Comparison of porphyrin-based, growth factor-based, and biochemical-based testing methods for identification of Haemophilus influenzae.

机译:基于卟啉,基于生长因子和基于生化的测试方法鉴定流感嗜血杆菌的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The accurate identification of Haemophilus spp. is essential for optimizing the role of the clinical microbiology laboratory in the diagnosis and management of Haemophilus infections. One laboratory-prepared medium and eight commercially available test systems were examined in parallel as a means of identifying 378 clinical isolates of Haemophilus spp. as either Haemophilus influenzae or non- Haemophilus influenzae spp. At least one discordant result was noted with 187 (49.5%) of the isolates tested. Discordant results were resolved either by majority rule for isolates with less than three discordant test results or by confirming the identity using conventional biochemical tests for isolates with three or more discordant test results ( n=20). Among these 20 isolates, 2 were judged not to belong to the Haemophilus genus. Comparisons of three porphyrin-based methods, three growth factor-based methods (1 of which also incorporates a porphyrin testing component), and three biochemical-based methods revealed varying discrepancy rates within each testing method. In general, porphyrin-based methods, with overall discrepancy rates of 1.3% or less, outperformed other testing methods. One important exception was the performance of the porphyrin testing component of the Haemophilus Identification Test Kit (Remel, USA), which produced an overall discrepancy rate of 28.5% and a false-negative rate of 52.2% with non- Haemophilus influenzae isolates. Growth factor-based methods yielded overall discrepancy rates ranging from 1.6% ( Haemophilus Identification Agar Quad; Remel) to 10.4% (hemin and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide disk component of the Haemophilus Identification Test Kit). Biochemical-based assays produced overall discrepancy rates ranging from 4.5% (API NH; bioMerieux Vitek, USA) to 10.1% ( Neisseria Haemophilus Identification Card; bioMerieux Vitek). Collectively, these results suggest that porphyrin-based testing methods represent the most reliable means for identifying Haemophilus spp.
机译:嗜血杆菌属的准确鉴定。对于优化临床微生物学实验室在嗜血杆菌感染的诊断和管理中的作用至关重要。平行检查了一种实验室准备的培养基和八种市售测试系统,以鉴定378种嗜血杆菌属临床分离株。作为流感嗜血杆菌或非流感嗜血杆菌属。至少有一个不一致的结果记录在187个(49.5%)的分离物中。不合格的结果可以通过多数规则解决不合格测试结果少于三个的分离株,也可以通过常规生化测试确认具有三个或三个以上不合格测试结果的分离株的身份来解决(n = 20)。在这20株分离株中,有2株不属于嗜血杆菌属。三种基于卟啉的方法,三种基于生长因子的方法(其中一种还包含卟啉检测成分)和三种基于生化的方法的比较表明,每种检测方法的差异率都不同。通常,总体差异率为1.3%或更低的基于卟啉的方法要优于其他测试方法。一个重要的例外是嗜血杆菌鉴定检测试剂盒(美国雷梅尔)中卟啉检测成分的性能,与非流感嗜血杆菌分离株的总体差异率为28.5%,假阴性率为52.2%。基于生长因子的方法产生的总体差异率为1.6%(嗜血杆菌鉴定琼脂四倍体; Remel)至10.4%(嗜血杆菌鉴定测试试剂盒中的血红素和烟酰胺腺嘌呤二核苷酸盘成分)。基于生化的分析产生的总体差异率在4.5%(API NH; BioMerieux Vitek,USA)至10.1%(Neisseria Haemophilus Identification Card; bioMerieux Vitek)之间。总的来说,这些结果表明基于卟啉的测试方法是鉴定嗜血杆菌属的最可靠方法。

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