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

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.

Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

ABSTRACT

The API 20E bacterial identification system has been used for 19 years, often as the standard with which other identification systems are compared. Because the accuracy of this system compared with conventional biochemical tests has not been determined in many years, we evaluated the API 20E linear strip by using 291 typical and atypical strains of the family Enterobacteriaceae taken from a culture collection. At 24 h, the API 20E correctly identified by genus and species 229 of 291 (78.7%) of the strains, using Salmonella and Shigella serotyping where indicated. At 48 h, 95.2% were correctly identified by using additional biochemical tests as recommended by the manufacturer. The API 20E misidentified eight (2.7%) strains; these strains were not limited to any particular genus. When 81 of these Enterobacteriaceae strains were arranged into a weighted assortment correlating to the frequency with which they might be found in a clinical laboratory, the API 20E correctly identified 71 (87.7%) at 24 h and 78 (96.3%) at 48 h. This evaluation concluded that the accuracy of the identification of Enterobacteriaceae strains at 24 h (78.7%) may be significantly lower than that of earlier evaluations. However, there is no significant difference in the ability of the API 20E to correctly identify "challenge" type organisms (229 of 291) versus routine hospital isolates (71 of 81) (P greater than 0.05), but the system is not as accurate as the conventional biochemical method of identification.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Nucera, D. M., Maddox, C. W., Hoien-Dalen, P., Weigel, R. M. (2006). Comparison of API 20E and invA PCR for Identification of Salmonella enterica Isolates from Swine Production Units.. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 3388-3390 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Hara, C. M. (2005). Manual and Automated Instrumentation for Identification of Enterobacteriaceae and Other Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacilli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18: 147-162 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Janda, J. M., Abbott, S. L. (2002). Bacterial Identification for Publication: When Is Enough Enough?. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40: 1887-1891 [Full Text]  
• Leclercq, A., Lambert, B., Pierard, D., Mahillon, J. (2001). Particular Biochemical Profiles for Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 Isolates on the ID 32E System. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39: 1161-1164 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Neubauer, H., Sauer, T., Becker, H., Aleksic, S., Meyer, H. (1998). Comparison of Systems for Identification and Differentiation of Species within the Genus Yersinia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36: 3366-3368 [Abstract] [Full Text]