Comparison of the autoSCAN-W/A rapid bacterial identification system and the Vitek AutoMicrobic system for identification of gram-negative bacilli

Pfaller, Michael A.; Sahm, Dan; O'Hara, C M; Ciaglia, C.; Yu, Miao; Yamane, Nobuhisa; Scharnweber, G.; Rhoden, D. L.

doi:10.1128/jcm.29.7.1422-1428.1991

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Published evaluations exist for each of the four commercial systems evaluated in the present study (1,2,4,11,14,15,17,22,23). However, only one of those studies, the one by Kitch et al (11), specifically states if any of their study isolates were recovered from CF patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Instead of not giving an identification for this organism, the system assigned an incorrect identification to eight of nine B. gladioli isolates, including five as B. cepacia. The Vitek card has been evaluated in several laboratories (14,15,17,22). However, only two studies have evaluated the system with multiple isolates of B. cepacia and related organisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of four commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia cepacia and other gram-negative nonfermenting bacilli recovered from patients with cystic fibrosis

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burkholderia cepacia has recently been recognized as an important pathogen in chronic lung disease in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Because of the social, psychological, and medical implications of the isolation of B. cepacia from CF patients, accurate identification of this organism is essential. We compared the accuracies of four commercial systems developed for the identification of nonfermenting, gram-negative bacilli with that of conventional biochemical testing for 150 nonfermenters including 58 isolates of B. cepacia recovered from respiratory secretions from CF patients. The accuracies of the four systems for identifying all nonfermenters ranged from 57 to 80%, with the RapID NF Plus system being most accurate. The accuracies of these systems for identifying B. cepacia ranged from 43 to 86%, with the Remel system being most accurate. Depending on the commercial system, from two to seven isolates were misidentified as B. cepacia. The relatively poor performance of the commercial systems requires that identification of certain nonfermenters be confirmed by conventional biochemical testing. These organisms include B. cepacia, Burkholderia sp. other than B. cepacia, and infrequently encountered environmental species (Pseudomonas and Flavobacterium species). In addition, conventional biochemical testing should be done if a commercial system fails to assign an identification to an organism. Confirmatory testing should preferably be performed by a reference laboratory with experience in working with organisms isolated from CF patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of four commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia cepacia and other gram-negative nonfermenting bacilli recovered from patients with cystic fibrosis

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most recent study of the GNI was reported by Pfaller et al (95). They tested 292 members of the family Enterobactenaceae and 91 nonenteric bacilli (including 8 genera and 11 species).…”

Section: Kitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In considering recent studies of the GNI, members of the family Enterobactenaceae were correctly identified in the range of 94.7 to 96.2%, with Enterobacter spp. the most frequently misidentified (24,95,120). Gram-negative organisms that were not members of the Enterobactenaceae were correctly identified in the range of 79.6 to 95%, with P. aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.…”

Section: Kitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated systems for identification of microorganisms.

Stager¹,

Davis²

1992

Clinical Microbiology Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commonly isolated organisms such as Escherichia coli, Kiebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were correctly identified. However, relatively common organisms such as Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii, Proteus vulgans, Providencia spp., Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., and Pseudomonas cepacia, as well as uncommon organisms, were frequently incorrectly identified. In addition, when organisms not represented in the data base were tested, they were frequently given an identification. Only one of these early studies involved a comparison of the Autobac Series II with another automated identification system, the Vitek system (bioMerieux Vitek,

show abstract

“…While several studies have examined the performances of automated microbial identification systems for the examination of clinical isolates (11,18,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)29), little work has been done to study the sensitivities and specificities of these systems for the testing of pathogens isolated from food samples. Many of the previous studies of clinical isolates were performed with versions of these automated microbial identification systems that contained now obsolete databases (11,14,18,25,28), and many of the studies did not include species that are often detected as pathogens in food samples.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Accuracy and Repeatability of Identification of Food-Borne Pathogens by Automated Bacterial Identification Systems

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performances of five automated microbial identification systems, relative to that of a reference identification system, for their ability to accurately and repeatedly identify six common food-borne pathogens were assessed. The systems assessed were the MicroLog system (Biolog Inc., Hayward, Calif.), the Microbial Identification System (MIS; MIDI Inc., Newark, Del.), the VITEK system (bioMérieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.), the MicroScan WalkAway 40 system (Dade-MicroScan International, West Sacramento, Calif.), and the Replianalyzer system (Oxoid Inc., Nepean, Ontario, Canada). The sensitivities and specificities of these systems for the identification of food-borne isolates of Bacillus cereus,Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes,Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp., and verotoxigenic Escherichia coli were determined with 40 reference positive isolates and 40 reference negative isolates for each pathogen. The sensitivities of these systems for the identification of these pathogens ranged from 42.5 to 100%, and the specificities of these systems for the identification of these pathogens ranged from 32.5 to 100%. Some of the systems had difficulty correctly identifying the reference isolates when the results were compared to those from the reference identification tests. The sensitivity of MIS for the identification of S. aureus, B. cereus,E. coli, and C. jejuni, for example, ranged from 47.5 to 72.5%. The sensitivity of the Microlog system for the identification of E. coli was 72.5%, and the sensitivity of the VITEK system for the identification of B. cereus was 42.5%. The specificities of four of the five systems for the identification of all of the species tested with the available databases were greater than or equal to 97.5%; the exception was MIS for the identification of C. jejuni, which displayed a specificity of 32.5% when it was tested with reference negative isolates including Campylobacter coli and otherCampylobacter species. All systems had >80% sensitivities for the identification of Salmonella species andListeria species at the genus level. The repeatability of these systems for the identification of test isolates ranged from 30 to 100%. Not all systems included all six pathogens in their databases; thus, some species could not be tested with all systems. The choice of automated microbial identification system for the identification of a food-borne pathogen would depend on the availability of identification libraries within the systems and the performance of the systems for the identification of the pathogen.

show abstract

Comparison of the autoSCAN-W/A rapid bacterial identification system and the Vitek AutoMicrobic system for identification of gram-negative bacilli

Cited by 33 publications

References 16 publications

Accuracy of four commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia cepacia and other gram-negative nonfermenting bacilli recovered from patients with cystic fibrosis

Accuracy of four commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia cepacia and other gram-negative nonfermenting bacilli recovered from patients with cystic fibrosis

Automated systems for identification of microorganisms.

Evaluation of Accuracy and Repeatability of Identification of Food-Borne Pathogens by Automated Bacterial Identification Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About