We compared three methods for identifying clinical yeast isolates: Abbott Quantum II, API 20C, and a modified BBL Minitek system. The API 20C and modified Minitek systems agreed on the identification of 243 of 245 yeasts (99.2%). The Quantum II system correctly identified 197 (80.4%), incorrectly identified 19 (7.8%), and did not identify 29 (11.8%) of the yeasts. Most of the misidentifications with the Quantum II occurred because assimilation or biochemical results were false-positive. Sixteen different species of yeasts and 16 different Quantum II substrates contributed to the discrepancies. On retesting with the Quantum II, 31% of the discrepant strains were correctly identified, while the remaining 69% were incorrectly identified or were not identified. Erroneous biochemical and assimilation results were also noted with yeasts that were correctly identified by the Quantum II system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiehn et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: