AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIt was concluded that automated identification systems that developed for accurate, reliable and rapid identification of bacteria, could be used as an alternative to conventional methods and commercial kits.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: In this study, three different methods were compared for the identification of some Gram positive and Gram negative reference bacteria. Materials and Methods: For this purpose the identification accuracy rates of Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Serratia marcescens were analysed by conventional bacteriological methods, commercial bacterial identification test kit (Microgen™ ID) and automated bacteria identification system (BD Phoenix 100™). Results: As a result of analyses, the identification accuracy rates of examined cultures were 94.5%, 95.2%, 94.6%, 89.6%, 91.1%, 92.5%, 86.9%, 96.4% by conventional bacteriological methods, 93.84%, 89.2%, 98.86%, 96.55%, 97.98%, 95.43%, 86.69%, 92.39% by commercial bacterial identification test kit and 98%, 99%, 99%, 96%, 96%, 97%, 99%, 98% by automated bacteria identification system, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison of methods, the identification accuracy values obtained from the automated system were higher than the other methods. It was concluded that automated identification systems that developed for accurate, reliable and rapid identification of bacteria, could be used as an alternative to conventional methods and commercial kits. In addition, it was thought that it would be useful to evaluate the identification of biotypes obtained from clinical isolates by similar methods.