JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
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 Wadlin, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Nachamkin, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wadlin, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Nachamkin, I.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1999, p. 1967-1970, Vol. 37, No. 6
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Three Commercial Systems for Identification of Yeasts Commonly Isolated in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory

Jill K. Wadlin, Gayle Hanko, Rebecca Stewart, John Pape, and Irving Nachamkin*

Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4283

Received 19 January 1999/Returned for modification 2 March 1999/Accepted 22 March 1999

We evaluated three commercial systems (RapID Yeast Plus System; Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Norcross, Ga.; API 20C Aux; bioMerieux-Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.; and Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card, bioMerieux-Vitek) against an auxinographic and microscopic morphologic reference method for the ability to identify yeasts commonly isolated in our clinical microbiology laboratory. Two-hundred one yeast isolates were compared in the study. The RapID Yeast Plus System was significantly better than either API 20C Aux (193 versus 167 correct identifications; P < 0.0001) or the Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card (193 versus 173 correct identifications; P = 0.003) for obtaining correct identifications to the species level without additional testing. There was no significant difference between results obtained with API 20C Aux and the Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card system (P = 0.39). The API 20C Aux system did not correctly identify any of the Candida krusei isolates (n = 23) without supplemental testing and accounted for the major differences between the API 20C Aux and RapID Yeast Plus systems. Overall, the RapID Yeast Plus System was easy to use and is a good system for the routine identification of clinically relevant yeasts.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 4th Floor Gates Building, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283. Phone: (215) 662-6651. Fax: (215) 662-6655. E-mail: nachamki{at}mail.med.upenn.edu.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1999, p. 1967-1970, Vol. 37, No. 6
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1999 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.