Test reproducibility of the API (20E), Enterotube, and Pathotec systems.
- 1 April 1977
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Vol. 30 (4), 381-387
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.30.4.381
Abstract
Thirty-three strains of bacteria (30 Enterobacteriaceae and 1 strain each of Aeromonas formicans, A. hydrophila and Plesiomonas shigelloides) were tested 3 times in each of 27 conventional tests and in the API, Enterotube and Pathotec systems. The results obtained were analyzed for test reproducibility within each kit, correlation of the kit tests with the equivalent conventional media and the identification of the strains by the kits. Difficulties in evaluation and comparison of identifications are discussed. A practical evaluation of the kits was also made.This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- A comparison of two commerical methods for the identification of the Enterobacteriaceae--API 20E and the Enterotube--with conventional methods.Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1976
- Evaluation of five test-kits —API, AuxoTab, Enterotube, PathoTec and R/B— for identification ofEnterobacteriaceaeMedical Microbiology and Immunology, 1974
- A clinical evaluation of the API microtube system for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.1974
- Identification of Bacteria by Computer: General Aspects and PerspectivesJournal of General Microbiology, 1973
- Carbon Source Utilization Tests as an Aid to the Classification of Non-fermenting Gram-negative BacteriaJournal of General Microbiology, 1973
- The Influence on Numerical Taxonomic Similarities of Errors in Microbiological TestsJournal of General Microbiology, 1972
- The comparison of percentages in matched samples.1950