1. Comparison of MicroID and AP120E systems for identification of Enterobacin the databases, and these organisms may then be teriaceae;Blazevic, D.J.; Mackay, D.L.; Warwood, N.M.;J Clin Microbiol; misidentified. For the interpretation of unusual or aberrant results and the identification of rare organisms the skill of an experienced microbiologist,1979
2. Evaluation of the Rapid NFT system for identification of Gram-negative, nonfermenting rods;Appaulbaum, P.C.; Leathers, D.J.;J Clin Microbiol,1984
3. Use of the Autobac IDX system for heavy an inoculum can give inaccurate results; one or rapid identification of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermentative two isolated colonies are sufficient for preparation of the inoculation suspension. T-he lysine decarboxylase reaction of the MB24E system is difficult to read, especially for weakly positive organisms. This is also Gram-negative bacilli;Costigan, W.J.; Hollick, G.E.;J Clin Microbiol,1984
4. Identification of the Enterobacteriaceae: a comparison ofthe Enterotube II with the API20E;Hayek, L.J.; Willis, G.W.;J Clin Pathol,1984
5. Comparison of the Microbact-12E and 24E systems and the API-20E system for the identification of tion of the API20E system is very slow,-requiring at least 10 to 15 minutes to developL'-This reaction is slightly faster in the MB24E system, requiring less than 10 minutes. The citrate utilisation test in the Enterobacteriaceae;Mugg, P.; Hill, A.;J Hyg,1981