This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Hara, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O'Hara, C. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, January 2005, p. 147-162, Vol. 18, No. 1
0893-8512/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/CMR.18.1.147-162.2005

Manual and Automated Instrumentation for Identification of Enterobacteriaceae and Other Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacilli

Caroline M. O'Hara*

Diagnostic Microbiology Section, Epidemiology and Laboratory Branch, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Identification of gram-negative bacilli, both enteric and nonenteric, by conventional methods is not realistic for clinical microbiology laboratories performing routine cultures in today's world. The use of commercial kits, either manual or automated, to identify these organisms is a common practice. The advent of rapid or "spot" testing has eliminated the need for some commonly isolated organisms to be identified with the systems approach. Commercially available systems provide more in-depth identification to the species level as well as detect new and unusual strains. The answers obtained from these systems may not always be correct and must be interpreted with caution. The patient demographics, laboratory workload and work flow, and technologist's skill levels should dictate the system of choice. Cost considerations introduce another variable into the equation affecting choice. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and each laboratory must decide on the level of sophistication that fulfills its particular needs.

* Mailing address: Mailstop C16, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: (404) 639-2316. Fax: (404) 639-3822. E-mail: cmo1{at}cdc.gov.

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, January 2005, p. 147-162, Vol. 18, No. 1
0893-8512/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/CMR.18.1.147-162.2005




This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Snyder, J. W., Munier, G. K., Johnson, C. L. (2008). Direct Comparison of the BD Phoenix System with the MicroScan WalkAway System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacteriaceae and Nonfermentative Gram-Negative Organisms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 2327-2333 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Mellmann, A., Cloud, J., Maier, T., Keckevoet, U., Ramminger, I., Iwen, P., Dunn, J., Hall, G., Wilson, D., LaSala, P., Kostrzewa, M., Harmsen, D. (2008). Evaluation of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry in Comparison to 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing for Species Identification of Nonfermenting Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 1946-1954 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Brigante, G., Luzzaro, F., Bettaccini, A., Lombardi, G., Meacci, F., Pini, B., Stefani, S., Toniolo, A. (2006). Use of the Phoenix Automated System for Identification of Streptococcus and Enterococcus spp.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 3263-3267 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lilburn, T. G., Harrison, S. H., Cole, J. R., Garrity, G. M. (2006). Computational aspects of systematic biology. Brief Bioinform 7: 186-195 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»