4.3 Article

Evaluation of four commercial transport media for the survival of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0732-8893(99)00134-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated four commercial transport systems with a standardized inoculum of clinical isolates of N. gonorrhoeae (NG), and assessed survival after holding for up to 48 hours at both ambient and refrigeration temperatures. Suspensions of clinical isolates of NG were standardized and adsorbed onto four transport swab types: Culturette EZ(TM) (Becton Dickinson [BD], Cockeysville, MD, USA); Cultureswab(TM) (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI, USA); Venturi Transystem(TM) (Copan Italia, Bovezzo, Italy); and a recently modified Starswab(TM) (Starplex Scientific, Etobicoke, ON). Swabs were plated to chocolate agar at 0, 6, 24, and 48 hours, and colonies counted. Each swab type was tested in quadruplicate with each NG strain for all time and temperature variables. There was a marked reduction in NG CFUs after only 6 hours incubation with each of the swabs tested. Survival was best using Venturi Transystem(TM) and Cultureswab(TM) transports (colony counts were reduced to 15.3% and 13.0%, respectively, at 6 hours) when compared with the Culturette EZ(TM) and Starswab(TM) (colony counts were reduced to 2.2% and 4.3%, respectively, at 6 hours). After the 24-hour holding period, 94% of the cultures from the Venturi Transystem(TM) were positive, 82% from the Cultureswab(TM), 24% from the Starswab(TM); and 17% from the Culturette EZ(TM). After 48 hours, recovery dropped to 72%, 43%, 14%, and 0.04%, respectively. All of the systems tested had at least an 80% decrease in recovered colonies after only 6 hours. Further studies are required to determine how poor transport conditions influence the number of positive cultures and what the public health implications are. Of the swabs tested, Cultureswab(TM) and Venturi Transystem(TM) were most acceptable. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据