Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A comparative study was designed to evaluate the identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) performances of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Systems [BD], Pont de Claix, France). A total of 305 single clinical isolates were collected, and comparisons were made with routine manual methods in use in our microbiology laboratories. The percentages of correct IDs were 93.3, 89.4, 91.8, and 85.7% for enterobacteria, nonfermenting gram-negative bacilli, staphylococci, and streptococci-enterococci, respectively. The median ID time was 3 h, and the median time for AST was 10 h 30 min. AST results showed variable percentages of errors for the different antibiotics. None of the enterobacteria and 0.3% of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates showed a very major error (VME). Only one strain of Staphylococcus aureus showed a VME with oxacillin. We demonstrate here the efficiency of the Phoenix system, which can be used for the majority of strains encountered in a university-based laboratory, for ID and AST.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donay et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: