4.6 Article

Clinical Performance of BD Kiestra InoqulA Automated System in a Chinese Tertiary Hospital

Journal

INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 941-947

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S245173

Keywords

BD Kiestra; InoqulA; microbiology automation

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFE0101800, 2018YFC1200100, 2018YFC1200105]
  2. CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine [2016-I2M -3-014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the BD Kiestra InoqulA automated specimen processing system with commonly encountered clinical microbiology specimens. Materials and Methods: Four types of clinical specimens (sputum, urine, normally sterile body fluids, and feces) were inoculated onto relevant agar plates using a manual method and the BD Kiestra automated system. The number of isolated pathogen species, number of isolated single colonies and uniformity of plate streaking were calculated and compared between two methods. Results: Significantly more isolated colonies were observed on plates inoculated by InoqulA for all specimen types and media with the exception of sputum specimens inoculated onto chocolate agar with vancomycin (P =0.076) and urine onto China blue agar (P =0.856). The quality of plate streaking was also better with InoqulA for all specimen types and media with the exception of urine specimens (P =1.000) and sterile body fluids (P =0.56) inoculated onto China blue agar. Conclusion: This is the first evaluation study of InoqulA with 4 types of clinical specimens in China. It focused on the effect of streaking plates automatically with the magnetic bead. Inoculation of clinical specimens with the BD Kiestra InoqulA system is superior to the manual method for recovery of single colonies and the overall quality of semi-quantitative plate streaking.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available