Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The autoSCAN-3, an instrument for the automated reading and interpretation of Microscan microdilution trays, was evaluated for its ability to identify gram-negative bacilli. The results obtained by the visual reading of microdilution trays were compared with the results obtained with the machine. A total 387 clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermenters were compared by both methods. In 369 instances (95%), the identification obtained by visual reading of the microdilution tray agreed with the identification obtained with the autoSCAN-3. In eight instances, the visual identification differed completely from that of the machine, and in nine cases, the machine was unable to provide an identification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellner et al. (1981) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: