JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greene, L C
Right arrow Articles by Kellogg, J A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greene, L C
Right arrow Articles by Kellogg, J A

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1984 August; 20(2): 285-287

Evaluation of a two-hour method for screening pathogens from stool specimens.

L C Greene, P C Appelbaum and J A Kellogg

ABSTRACT

The 2-h stool-screening test (SST) (API System S.A., Montalieu-Vercieu, France) was used to screen 231 organisms yielding suspicious colonies on stool differential agars for potential pathogens. All 54 salmonellae yielded correct screens. Of 14 shigellas, 9 keyed as possible Shigella spp.-Yersinia enterocolitica-rare Salmonella spp. (SYS), and 5 (all Shigella sonnei) keyed as possible S. sonnei-Y. enterocolitica-Arizona spp. (SYA). Three Arizona strains were identified as probable Salmonella spp., two were identified as SYA, and one was identified as SYS. Seven Y. enterocolitica strains keyed as SYS, and two keyed as SYA; one strain was screened out as a nonpathogen. The two Aeromonas hydrophila strains keyed as SYA, and the two Plesiomonas shigelloides strains keyed as SYS. All 63 Proteus, Morganella, Providencia, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains were screened out as nonpathogens. Among 80 coliforms, 37 were screened as SYA, 32 were screened as SYS, and 11 were screened as nonpathogens. On the basis of the SST, 69/80 coliforms would have been tested further. However, only 1/88 potential pathogens would have been missed, and all Proteus, Morganella, Providencia, and P. aeruginosa strains would have been excluded. The capability of the SST (when combined with a rapid identification method) of providing same-day identification of potential stool pathogens must be weighed against its inability to effectively screen out coliforms. The cost of this method is equivalent to that of a three-tube conventional screening method. The suitability of the SST for individual laboratories must be predicated on the incidence of stool pathogens and commensals in the specific setting as well as on factors related to work flow, technologist acceptability, and turnaround time.


J Clin Microbiol. 1984 August; 20(2): 285-287




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1984 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.