These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6374735)

  • 21. Comparison of the Microbact-12E and 24E systems and the API-20E system for the identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Mugg P; Hill A
    J Hyg (Lond); 1981 Oct; 87(2):287-97. PubMed ID: 7026673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of the enterotube system for identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae.
    Martin WJ; Yu PK; Washington JA
    Appl Microbiol; 1971 Jul; 22(1):96-9. PubMed ID: 4939124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparative study of three methods of identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Rutherford I; Moody V; Gavan TL; Ayers LW; Taylor DL
    J Clin Microbiol; 1977 Apr; 5(4):458-64. PubMed ID: 323287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Comparative study of API system, Enterotube and the usual method for identifying Enterobacteriaceae].
    Bourgaux-Ramoisy D; Béland S; Brochu B
    Vie Med Can Fr; 1973; 2(2):107-9. PubMed ID: 4574869
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of Minitec and API as rapid diagnostic methods for anaerobic bacteria.
    Bergan T; Vangdal M; Salveson A
    Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl; 1984; 91():103-11. PubMed ID: 6377470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Preliminary evaluation of sensititre system for identifying gram-negative bacilli.
    Mucignat G; Tarabini-Castellani GL; Pascoli L; De Cal W; Bruschetta G; De Paoli P; Santini G
    Microbiologica; 1991 Jul; 14(3):261-5. PubMed ID: 1921747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Identification of Gram negative rods and evaluation of their antibiotic sensitivity: comparison of the BIOTEST MHK/ID-system with the API 20E-system and the agar diffusion test].
    Stanek G; Hirschl A; Rotter M
    Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A Med Mikrobiol Infekt Parasitol; 1982 Oct; 253(1):61-75. PubMed ID: 6817546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Reevaluation of the API 20E identification system versus conventional biochemicals for identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae: a new look at an old product.
    O'Hara CM; Rhoden DL; Miller JM
    J Clin Microbiol; 1992 Jan; 30(1):123-5. PubMed ID: 1734043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of identification of Enterobacteriaceae by API 20E and Sensititre Autoidentification System.
    Barr JG; Hogg GM; Smyth ET; Emmerson AM
    J Clin Pathol; 1989 Jun; 42(6):649-52. PubMed ID: 2661593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of the Micro-ID, the API 20E and the Rapid 20E for same-day identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Appelbaum PC; Jacobs MR; Buick MK; Flanagan MM; Gymer GA
    Eur J Clin Microbiol; 1985 Oct; 4(5):498-501. PubMed ID: 3905400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Discordancies between classical and API 20E microtest biochemical identification of Vibrio and Aeromonas strains].
    Israil AM; Balotescu MC; Alexandru I; Dobre G
    Bacteriol Virusol Parazitol Epidemiol; 2003; 48(2-3):141-3. PubMed ID: 15341329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Supplementary rapid biochemical test panel for the API 20E bacterial identification system.
    Edinger RC; Migneault PC; Nolte FS
    J Clin Microbiol; 1985 Dec; 22(6):1063-5. PubMed ID: 3905846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of the automicrobic system with API, enterotube, micro-ID, micro-media systems, and conventional methods for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Kelly MT; Latimer JM
    J Clin Microbiol; 1980 Nov; 12(5):659-62. PubMed ID: 7024296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Use of the API 20E system to identify veterinary Enterobacteriaceae.
    Swanson EC; Collins MT
    J Clin Microbiol; 1980 Jul; 12(1):10-4. PubMed ID: 6999012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. External quality assessment for clinical microbiological laboratories in Norway 1982. 1. Evaluation of the identifications of 24 bacterial strains.
    Lassen J; Sandven P
    NIPH Ann; 1983 Jun; 6(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 6621930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of the redesigned enterotube--a system for the identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Tomfohrde KM; Rhoden DL; Smith PB; Balows A
    Appl Microbiol; 1973 Feb; 25(2):301-4. PubMed ID: 4571661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of the MIC 2000 enteric media with API 20 E and conventional methods for identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Courcol RJ; Husson MO; Izard DE; Martin GR
    Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A Med Mikrobiol Infekt Parasitol; 1982 Sep; 252(4):472-9. PubMed ID: 6758421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of different biochemical and molecular methods for the identification of Vibrio parahaemolyticus.
    Croci L; Suffredini E; Cozzi L; Toti L; Ottaviani D; Pruzzo C; Serratore P; Fischetti R; Goffredo E; Loffredo G; Mioni R;
    J Appl Microbiol; 2007 Jan; 102(1):229-37. PubMed ID: 17184339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Time-motion and cost comparison study of micro-ID, API 20E, and conventional biochemical testing in identification of Enterobacteriaceae.
    Bale MJ; Matsen JM
    J Clin Microbiol; 1981 Dec; 14(6):665-70. PubMed ID: 6801085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Misuse and interlaboratory test reproducibility of API 20E system.
    Holmes B; Dawson CA
    J Clin Pathol; 1985 Aug; 38(8):937-41. PubMed ID: 3897293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.