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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the BBL Crystal Anaerobe identification system.
    Author: Cavallaro JJ, Wiggs LS, Miller JM.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1997 Dec; 35(12):3186-91. PubMed ID: 9399517.
    Abstract:
    The BBL Crystal Anaerobe (ANR) identification system was evaluated, and the results were compared with those from conventional anaerobic methods. We tested 322 clinically significant anaerobic bacteria according to the manufacturer's instructions. The system identified correctly 286 of 322 (88.8%) of the anaerobic bacteria tested. Of these, 263 of 322 (81.7%) were identified correctly on initial testing and 49 were identified correctly only to the genus level; on repeat testing, 23 of 49 (46.9%) were identified correctly to both the genus and the species levels. A total of 26 (8.5%) were misidentified at the species level, and 10 (3.1%) were not identified. Performance characteristics for individual strains varied. The system correctly identified all tested strains of Campylobacter, Desulfomonas, Desulfovibrio, Leptotrichia, Mobiluncus, Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas, Provetella, Propionibacterium, Tisierella, and Veillonella and 36 of 37 (97.3%) Actinomyces strains, 42 of 46 (91.3%) B. fragilis group strains, 79 of 103 (76.7%) Clostridium strains, (however, the system failed to identify any of the 7 C. innocuum and 9 C. tetani strains tested), and 8 of 15 (53.3%) Bacteroides strains. This system was easy to use, did not involve the addition of reagents, and was faster than conventional anaerobic procedures. It would be a useful addition to the anaerobe laboratory of most hospitals.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]