Analysis of the comparative workflow and performance characteristics of the VITEK 2 and phoenix systems

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 3829-3834

  Eigner, U ^a   Schmid, A ^a   Wild, U ^a   Bertsch, D ^a   Fahr, A M ^a,b  

^a Laboratory Group   (Germany)

^b NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPICILLIN; CEFAZOLIN; CEFEPIME; CEFTAZIDIME; CEFUROXIME; CLINDAMYCIN; COTRIMOXAZOLE; ERYTHROMYCIN; GENTAMICIN; LEVOFLOXACIN; MEROPENEM; OFLOXACIN; OXACILLIN; PENICILLIN G; PIPERACILLIN; PIPERACILLIN PLUS TAZOBACTAM; RIFAMPICIN; TEICOPLANIN; TETRACYCLINE; VANCOMYCIN;

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANTIBIOTIC SENSITIVITY; ARTICLE; BACTERIUM IDENTIFICATION; BACTERIUM ISOLATE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; ENTEROCOCCUS; FERMENTATION; INSTRUMENT; NONHUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STAPHYLOCOCCUS;

AUTOMATION; BACTERIA; BACTERIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; TIME FACTORS;

ENTEROBACTERIACEAE; ENTEROCOCCUS; STAPHYLOCOCCI; STAPHYLOCOCCUS;

EID: 23744453764     PISSN: 00951137     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.8.3829-3834.2005     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abele-Horn, M., S. Suerbaum, and M. Frosch. 2002. Evaluierung des VITEK 2 in der Routinediagnostik. Mikrobiologe 12:203-215.
2. Barenfanger, J., C. Drake, and G. Kacich. 1999. Clinical and financial benefit of rapid bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:1415-1418.
3. Barenfanger, J., M. A. Short, and A. A. Groesch. 2001. Improved antimicrobial interventions have benefits. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2823-2828.
4. Center for Devices and Radiological Health 2000. Guidelines on review criteria for assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility devices. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.
5. Doern, G., R. Vautour, M. Gaudet, and B. Levy. 1994. Clinical impact of rapid in vitro susceptibility testing and bacterial identification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:1757-1762.
6. Donay, J. L., D. Mathieu, P. Fernandes, C. Prégermain, P. Bruel, A. Wargnier, I. Casin, F. X. Weill, P. H. Lagrange, and J. L. Hermann. 2004. Evaluation of the automated Phoenix system for potential routine use in the clinical microbiology laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:1542-1546.
7. Endimiani, A., F. Luzzaro, A. Tamborini, G. Lombardi, V. Elia, R. Belloni, and A. Toniolo. 2002. Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of nonfermenting gram-negative bacteria by the Phoenix Automated Microbiology System. New Microbiol. 25:323-329.
8. Fahr, A. M., U. Eigner, M. Armbrust, A. Caganic, G. Dettori, C. Chezzi, L. Bertoncini, M. Benecchi, and M. G. Menozzi. 2003. Two-center collaborative evaluation of the performance of the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Enterococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:1135-1142.
9. Funke, G., D. Monnet, C. deBernadis, A. von Graevenitz, and J. Freney. 1998. Evaluation of the VITEK 2 System for rapid ID of medically relevant gram-negative rods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35:1948-1952.
10. Garcia-Garrotte, F., E. Cercenado, and E. Bouza. 2000. Evaluation of a new system, VITEK 2, for ID and AST of enterococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:2108-2111.
11. Jossart, M.-F., and R. J. Courcol. 1999. Evaluation of an automated system for identification of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermenting bacilli. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 18:902-907.
12. Joyanes, P., M. del Carmen Conejo, L. Martinez-Martinez, and E. J. Perea. 2001. Evaluation of the VITEK 2 system for the identification and susceptibility testing of three species of nonfermenting gram-negative rods frequently isolated from clinical samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:3247-3253.
13. Ling, T. K. W., P. C. Tam, Z. K. Liu, and A. F. B. Cheng. 2001. Evaluation of VITEK 2 rapid identification and susceptibility testing system against gram-negative clinical isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:2964-2966.
14. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2002. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 12th informational supplement, vol. 22, no. 1. NCCLS document M100-S12. Approved standard M2-A5. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
15. Pérez-Vázquez, M., A. Oliver, B. Sanchez del Saz, E. Loza, F. Baquero, and R. Canton. 2001. Performance of the VITEK 2 system for identification and susceptibility testing of routine Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 17:371-376.
16. Stefaniuk, E., A. Baraniak, M. Gniadkowski, and W. Hryniewicz. 2003. Evaluation of the BD Phoenix automated identification and susceptibility testing system in clinical microbiology laboratory practice. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 22:479-485.
17. van den Braak, N., W. Goessens, A. van Belkum, H. A. Verbrugh, and H. P. Endtz. 2001. Accuracy of the VITEK 2 system to detect glycopeptide resistance in enterococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:351-353.