BacT/ALERT两种血培养系统8种血培养瓶对模拟菌血症标本检测能力的对比研究

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5820.2023.04.003

目的

比较需氧和兼性厌氧血培养瓶BacT/ALERT FA Plus、FA、PF Plus、PF、SA及厌氧和兼性厌氧血培养瓶BacT/ALERT FN Plus、FN、SN对模拟菌血症标本检测的差异；验证BacT/ALERT VIRTUO血培养仪监测血量的准确性。

方法

选取23种常见菌配制成菌悬液，在培养瓶中加入定量无菌缓冲液和健康人血以及菌悬液，分别放入两个血培养仪进行培养，比较平均检测时间（TTD）和阳性生长情况；向血培养瓶中注入定量磷酸缓冲盐溶液（PBS）后放入BacT/ALERT VIRTUO血培养仪，记录仪器监测量，并计算其与注入量的差异。

结果

除人型葡萄球菌和新型隐球菌外，8种血培养瓶对其余21种菌的阳性检出率均为100%；5种需氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测需氧和兼性厌氧微生物的平均TTD差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；在检测厌氧和兼性厌氧菌方面，SN最快。在检测需氧和兼性厌氧菌、厌氧和兼性厌氧菌方面，BacT/ALERT VIRTUO血培养仪比国内使用较广泛的BacT/ALERT 3D血培养仪平均TTD分别缩短1.5~8 h和3~8 h；在检测真菌方面，两仪器间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。BacT/ALERT VIRTUO仪器监测血量和实际注入量之间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论

5种需氧和兼性厌氧瓶在检测常见需氧和兼性厌氧菌血症标本方面的能力差异无统计学意义，SN在缩短厌氧和兼性厌氧菌血症检测时间方面优于FN和FN Plus；BacT/ALERT VIRTUO血培养仪能明显缩短菌血症标本的TTD，且在监测血量方面准确可靠。

关键词: 血培养, 培养基, 细菌, 血流感染

Objective

To compared the difference of aerobic and facultative anaerobic blood culture bottles BacT/ALERT FA Plus, FA, PF Plus, PF and SA, as well as anaerobic and facultative anaerobic bottles BacT/ALERT FN Plus, FN and SN in the detection of simulated bacteremia samples, and to verify the accuracy of monitoring blood volume with BacT/ALERT VIRTUO blood culture instrument.

Methods

23 kinds of bacteria were selected to prepare bacterial suspension. Healthy human blood and bacterial suspension were added into the bottles, and cultured in two blood culture systems respectively. The mean detection time (time-to-detect, TTD) and positive growth were compared. A certain amount of phosphate buffer saline (PBS) was injected into the blood culture bottles, and then placed in the BacT/ALERTVIRTUO blood culture instrument to get the monitoring volume, and calculate the difference between the injected volume and the monitoring volume.

Results

Except for Staphylococcus hominis and Cryptococcus neoformans, the positive detection rates of the other 21 strains were 100%. There was no significant difference in the average TTD time of the five kinds of aerobic bottles in the detection of aerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria and fungi. For the detection of anaerobes and facultative anaerobes, SN bottle was the fastest. In the detection of aerobic and facultative anaerobes, anaerobic and facultative anaerobes, the average TTD time of BacT/ALERTVIRTUO blood culture instrument was shortened by 1.5~8 h and 3~8 h compared with BacT/ALERT 3D blood culture instrument, and the difference was statistically significant. The difference between the monitoring volume and the actual injection volume was no statistical difference.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in the ability of five kinds of aerobic bottles to detect common bacteremia specimens. The anaerobic bottle SN is superior to FN and FN Plus bottles in shortening the detection time. BacT/ALERTVIRTUO blood culture instrument can significantly shorten the detection time of common bacteremia samples and is accurate and reliable in monitoring blood volume.

Key words: blood culture, culture medium, bacteria, bloodstream infection

表1 常见菌在不同血培养瓶和血培养仪TTD/h

分类	菌名	BacT/ALERT 3D					BacT/ALERT VIRTUO
分类	菌名	FA Plus	FN Plus	FA	FN	PF	FA Plus	FN Plus	SA	SN	PF Plus
需氧和兼性厌氧菌	金黄色葡萄球菌	17.8	22.3	16.6	16.6	69.4	10.8	22.0	11.8	9.8	11.5
	粪肠球菌	12.2	21.1	15.4	14.2	18.5	10.3	20.0	10.8	9.6	10.1
	人型葡萄球菌	19.0	40.3	22.6	N	26.6	17.7	28.8	19.8	13.6	18.5
	铅黄肠球菌	13.7	15.4	15.4	13.9	15.6	11.5	13.0	10.8	10.8	11.1
	无乳链球菌	15.1	\	14.2	\	15.1	15.8	\	14.3	\	10.6
	化脓链球菌	19.2	31.2	21.6	22.6	40.8	16.7	27.4	19.6	17.6	15.8
	大肠埃希菌	11.5	11.3	16.8	11.0	18.2	9.1	8.9	9.7	8.8	9.1
	肺炎克雷伯菌	12.2	12.7	12.5	12.2	13.4	9.3	10.3	10.0	9.7	10.1
	奇异变形杆菌	12.7	13.2	13.2	13.4	16.3	10.2	11.1	12.9	10.0	11.7
	阴沟肠杆菌	12.2	14.4	12.7	12.7	16.6	10.2	12.2	9.9	14.6	10.9
	嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌	27.4	\	24.2	\	25.2	25.7	\	23.2	\	25.5
	铜绿假单胞菌	17.3	\	17.3	\	17.3	16.1	\	14.5	\	17.3
	脑膜炎伊利沙白金菌	23.5	\	20.4	\	22.1	24.4	\	19.9	\	24.6
	鲍曼不动杆菌	11.3	\	15.4	\	14.9	9.1	\	10.8	\	9.8
	产酸克雷伯菌	12.5	13.2	13.0	12.7	13.2	11.0	11.0	11.3	9.7	11.5
	流感嗜血杆菌	16.3	19.9	14.2	46.3	14.2	14.3	14.1	22.0	17.5	11.9
	肺炎链球菌	13.4	13.4	12.7	61.7	13.7	9.4	12.7	10.2	10.8	8.9
厌氧菌	脆弱拟杆菌	\	37.2	\	107.5	\	\	34.8	\	33.9	\
真菌	葡萄牙念珠菌	24.7	\	24.7	\	24.7	26.0	\	25.2	\	24.8
	近平滑念珠菌	78.7	\	43.4	\	39.1	72.0	\	42.4	\	37.2
	新型隐球菌	94.1	\	137.5	\	N	93.6	\	N	\	66.4
	光滑念珠菌	16.3	\	20.6	\	18.5	16.1	\	20.7	\	29.8
	白色念珠菌	28.3	\	31.0	\	30.2	27.5	\	27.4	\	30.2

表1 常见菌在不同血培养瓶和血培养仪TTD/h

分类	菌名	BacT/ALERT 3D					BacT/ALERT VIRTUO
分类	菌名	FA Plus	FN Plus	FA	FN	PF	FA Plus	FN Plus	SA	SN	PF Plus
需氧和兼性厌氧菌	金黄色葡萄球菌	17.8	22.3	16.6	16.6	69.4	10.8	22.0	11.8	9.8	11.5
	粪肠球菌	12.2	21.1	15.4	14.2	18.5	10.3	20.0	10.8	9.6	10.1
	人型葡萄球菌	19.0	40.3	22.6	N	26.6	17.7	28.8	19.8	13.6	18.5
	铅黄肠球菌	13.7	15.4	15.4	13.9	15.6	11.5	13.0	10.8	10.8	11.1
	无乳链球菌	15.1	\	14.2	\	15.1	15.8	\	14.3	\	10.6
	化脓链球菌	19.2	31.2	21.6	22.6	40.8	16.7	27.4	19.6	17.6	15.8
	大肠埃希菌	11.5	11.3	16.8	11.0	18.2	9.1	8.9	9.7	8.8	9.1
	肺炎克雷伯菌	12.2	12.7	12.5	12.2	13.4	9.3	10.3	10.0	9.7	10.1
	奇异变形杆菌	12.7	13.2	13.2	13.4	16.3	10.2	11.1	12.9	10.0	11.7
	阴沟肠杆菌	12.2	14.4	12.7	12.7	16.6	10.2	12.2	9.9	14.6	10.9
	嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌	27.4	\	24.2	\	25.2	25.7	\	23.2	\	25.5
	铜绿假单胞菌	17.3	\	17.3	\	17.3	16.1	\	14.5	\	17.3
	脑膜炎伊利沙白金菌	23.5	\	20.4	\	22.1	24.4	\	19.9	\	24.6
	鲍曼不动杆菌	11.3	\	15.4	\	14.9	9.1	\	10.8	\	9.8
	产酸克雷伯菌	12.5	13.2	13.0	12.7	13.2	11.0	11.0	11.3	9.7	11.5
	流感嗜血杆菌	16.3	19.9	14.2	46.3	14.2	14.3	14.1	22.0	17.5	11.9
	肺炎链球菌	13.4	13.4	12.7	61.7	13.7	9.4	12.7	10.2	10.8	8.9
厌氧菌	脆弱拟杆菌	\	37.2	\	107.5	\	\	34.8	\	33.9	\
真菌	葡萄牙念珠菌	24.7	\	24.7	\	24.7	26.0	\	25.2	\	24.8
	近平滑念珠菌	78.7	\	43.4	\	39.1	72.0	\	42.4	\	37.2
	新型隐球菌	94.1	\	137.5	\	N	93.6	\	N	\	66.4
	光滑念珠菌	16.3	\	20.6	\	18.5	16.1	\	20.7	\	29.8
	白色念珠菌	28.3	\	31.0	\	30.2	27.5	\	27.4	\	30.2

表2 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测需氧和兼性厌氧菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	15.7±4.5
	FA	16.3±3.7
	PF	21.8±14.1
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	13.6±5.3
	SA	14.2±4.7
	PF Plus	13.5±5.1

表2 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测需氧和兼性厌氧菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	15.7±4.5
	FA	16.3±3.7
	PF	21.8±14.1
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	13.6±5.3
	SA	14.2±4.7
	PF Plus	13.5±5.1

表3 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶在VIRTUO和3D血培养仪平均TTD对比（VIRTUO缩短时间h/P值）

BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	BacT/ALERT 3D
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	FA	PF
FA Plus	2.0/0.000 1	2.7/0.002 3	8.2/0.026 3
SA	1.5/0.026 5	2.1/0.013 1	7.6/0.039 9
PF Plus	2.2/0.000 1	2.8/0.000 8	8.3/0.026 3

表3 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶在VIRTUO和3D血培养仪平均TTD对比（VIRTUO缩短时间h/P值）

BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	BacT/ALERT 3D
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	FA	PF
FA Plus	2.0/0.000 1	2.7/0.002 3	8.2/0.026 3
SA	1.5/0.026 5	2.1/0.013 1	7.6/0.039 9
PF Plus	2.2/0.000 1	2.8/0.000 8	8.3/0.026 3

表4 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测真菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	48.4±35.3
	FA	51.5±48.9
	PF	28.1±8.8
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	47.0±33.8
	SA	28.9±9.4
	PF Plus	37.7±16.7

表4 需氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测真菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	48.4±35.3
	FA	51.5±48.9
	PF	28.1±8.8
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FA Plus	47.0±33.8
	SA	28.9±9.4
	PF Plus	37.7±16.7

表5 厌氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测厌氧和兼性厌氧菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	20.4±9.8
	FN	21.6±16.7
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FN Plus	17.4±8.4
	SN	13.6±16.8

表5 厌氧和兼性厌氧瓶检测厌氧和兼性厌氧菌模拟菌血症标本的TTD对比

血培养仪	血培养瓶	平均TTD/h
BacT/ALERT 3D	FA Plus	20.4±9.8
	FN	21.6±16.7
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FN Plus	17.4±8.4
	SN	13.6±16.8

表6 厌氧和兼性厌氧瓶在VIRTUO和3D血培养仪平均TTD对比（VIRTUO缩短时间h/P值）

BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	BacT/ALERT 3D
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FN Plus	FN
FN Plus	3.0/0.002 7	4.2/0.225 7
SN	6.8/0.005 8	8.0/0.065 1

表6 厌氧和兼性厌氧瓶在VIRTUO和3D血培养仪平均TTD对比（VIRTUO缩短时间h/P值）

BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	BacT/ALERT 3D
BacT/ALERT VIRTUO	FN Plus	FN
FN Plus	3.0/0.002 7	4.2/0.225 7
SN	6.8/0.005 8	8.0/0.065 1

表7 实际注入量和监测量对比

实际注入量/ml	监测量/ml	P值
3	2~4	0.363 2
5	3~7	1.000 0
10	8~12	0.545 1

表7 实际注入量和监测量对比

实际注入量/ml	监测量/ml	P值
3	2~4	0.363 2
5	3~7	1.000 0
10	8~12	0.545 1

1	LAMY B, SUNDQVIST M, IDELEVICH E A, et al. Bloodstream infections-standard and progress in pathogen diagnostics[J]. Clinical microbiology and infection: The official publication of the European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases, 2020, 26(2): 142-150.
2	LIU W, WANG C, PAN F, et al. Clinical application of a multiplex droplet digital PCR in the rapid diagnosis of children with suspected bloodstream infections[J]. Pathogens, 2023, 12(5): 719.
3	WARHURST G, DUNN G, CHADWICK P, et al. Rapid detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection in critical care using multipathogen real-time polymerase chain reaction technology: A diagnostic accuracy study and systematic review[J]. Health technology assessment, 2015, 19(35): 1-142.
4	HU B, TAO Y, SHAO Z, et al. A Comparison of blood pathogen detection among droplet digital PCR, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and blood culture in critically Ill patients with suspected bloodstream infections[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2021, 12: 641202.
5	LAMY B, DARGÈRE S, ARENDRUP M C, et al. How to optimize the use of blood cultures for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections? A state-of-the art[J]. Frontiers in microbiology, 2016, 7: 697.
6	王瑶,徐英春,谢秀丽, 等. 两种血培养系统的需氧与厌氧瓶对模拟菌血症标本检测能力的对比研究[J]. 中华检验医学杂志, 2007, 30(5): 582-587.
7	TOTTY H, ULLERY M, SPONTAK J, et al. A controlled comparison of the BacT/ALERT^® 3D and VIRTUO™ microbial detection systems[J]. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 2017, 36(10): 1795-1800.
8	CHUNG Y, KIM IH, HAN M, et al. A comparative evaluation of BACT/ALERT FA PLUS and FN PLUS blood culture bottles and BD BACTEC Plus aerobic and anaerobic blood culture bottles for antimicrobial neutralization[J]. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases: Official publication of the European society of clinical microbiology, 2019, 38(12): 2229-2233.
9	SOMILY A M, HABIB H A, TORCHYAN A A, et al. Time-to-detection of bacteria and yeast with the BACTEC FX versus BacT/Alert Virtuo blood culture systems[J]. Annals of Saudi medicine, 2018, 38(3): 194-199.
10	SANABRIA A, RØKEBERG M E O, JOHANNESSEN M, et al. Culturing periprosthetic tissue in BacT/Alert® Virtuo blood culture system leads to improved and faster detection of prosthetic joint infections[J]. BMC infectious diseases, 2019, 19(1): 607.
11	SHE R C, ROMNEY M G, JANG W, et al. Performance of the BacT/Alert Virtuo microbial detection system for the culture of sterile body fluids: prospective multicentre study[J]. Clinical microbiology and infection: The official publication of the European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases, 2018, 24(9): 992-996.
12	ALTUN O, ALMUHAYAWI M, LÜTHJE P, et al. Controlled evaluation of the new BacT/Alert Virtuo blood culture system for detection and time to detection of bacteria and yeasts[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016, 54(4): 1148-1151.
13	JACOBS M R, MAZZULLI T, HAZEN K C, et al. Multicenter clinical evaluation of BacT/Alert Virtuo blood culture system[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017, 55(8): 2413-2421.
14	MENCHINELLI G, LIOTTI FM, FIORI B, et al. In vitro evaluation of BACT/ALERT^® VIRTUO^®, BACT/ALERT 3D^®, and BACTEC™ FX automated blood culture systems for detection of microbial pathogens using simulated human blood samples[J]. Front microbiol, 2019, 10: 221.
15	KIM SC, LEE S, KIM S, et al. Comparison of clinical performance between BacT/Alert Virtuo and BacT/Alert 3D blood culture systems[J]. Annals of laboratory medicine, 2019, 39(3): 278-283.
16	CONGESTRÌ F, PEDNA MF, FANTINI M, et al. Comparison of 'time to detection' values between BacT/ALERT VIRTUO and BacT/ALERT 3D instruments for clinical blood culture samples[J]. International journal of infectious diseases: Official publication of the international society for infectious diseases, 2017, 62: 1-5.
17	LI Z, LIU S, CHEN H, et al. Comparative evaluation of BACTEC FX, BacT/ALERT 3D, and BacT/ALERT VIRTUO-automated blood culture systems using simulated blood cultures[J]. Acta clinica Belgica, 2022, 77(1): 71-78.
18	LEE D H, KIM S C, BAE I G, et al. Clinical evaluation of BacT/Alert FA Plus and FN Plus bottles compared with standard bottles[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013, 51(12): 4150-4155.
19	NUTMAN A, FISHER EVEN-TSUR S, SHAPIRO G, et al. Time to detection with BacT/Alert FA Plus compared to BacT/Alert FA blood culture media[J]. European journal of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases: Official publication of the European society of clinical microbiology, 2016, 35(9): 1469-1473.
20	KIRN T J, MIRRETT S, RELLER L B, et al. Controlled clinical comparison of BacT/Alert FA Plus and FN Plus blood culture media with BacT/Alert FA and FN blood culture media[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014, 52(3): 839-843.
21	郑炘,黄绮,邢珊,等. 2种抗菌药物吸附材料血培养瓶BacT/ALERT检测平台病原体检出能力比较[J]. 检验医学, 2021, 36(12): 1258-1263.
22	HATTORI T, NISHIYAMA H, IKEGAMI S, et al. Clinical evaluation of FAPlus/FNPlus bottles compared with the combination of SA/SN and FA/FN bottles in the BacT/Alertblood culture system[J]. The journal of medical investigation, 2020, 67(1.2): 90-94.
23	REIMER L G, WILSON M L, WEINSTEIN M P. Update on detection of bacteremia and fungemia[J]. Clinical microbiology reviews, 1997, 10(3): 444-465.
24	ANTILLON M, SAAD N J, BAKER S, et al. The relationship between blood sample volume and diagnostic sensitivity of blood culture for typhoid and paratyphoid fever: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. The journal of infectious diseases, 2018, 218(suppl_4): S255-S267.
25	BROWN D R, KUTLER D, RAI B, et al. Bacterial concentration and blood volume required for a positive blood culture[J]. Journal of perinatology: Official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 1995, 15(2): 157-159.
26	MERMEL L A, MAKI D G. Detection of bacteremia in adults: Consequences of culturing an inadequate volume of blood[J]. Annals of internal medicine, 1993, 119(4): 270-272.
27	Kim S C, Kim S, Lee D H, et al. Effect of blood volume in standard anaerobic blood culture bottles of the BacT/ALERT 3D system used for the detection of pathogens and time to detection[J]. PloS one, 2015,10(2): e0116728.
28	BOUZA E, SOUSA D, Rodríguez-Créixems M, et al. Is the volume of blood cultured still a significant factor in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections?[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007, 45(9): 2765-2769.
29	GONSALVES W I, CORNISH N, MOORE M, et al. Effects of volume and site of blood draw on blood culture results[J]. Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009, 47(11): 3482-3485.
30	国家卫生计生委. WST 503-2017临床微生物实验室血培养操作规范[S]. 北京：中国标准出版社, 2017.

[1]	赵洪峰, 王淑颖, 胡炜, 聂世姣, 费莹, 石尚世, 储华英, 王剑荣. 体外膜肺氧合相关血流感染危险因素及预测模型建立[J]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 98-104.
[2]	魏权, 张燊, 陈慧佳, 邹姮, 胡丽娜. 女性生殖道微生物群与辅助生殖技术相关性研究现状[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(02): 151-155.
[3]	涂家金, 廖武强, 刘金晶, 涂志鹏, 毛远桂. 严重烧伤患者鲍曼不动杆菌血流感染的危险因素及预后分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 491-497.
[4]	范帅华, 郭伟, 郭军. 基于机器学习的决策树算法在血流感染预后预测中应用现状及展望[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 289-293.
[5]	武元星, 任建伟, 朱光发. 181例心脏外科患者发生血流感染危险因素分析[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 230-237.
[6]	王锃涛, 王宪波, 曹钰, 郝禹, 韩俊燕, 曾辉. 基于多色流式降维聚类方法的自发性细菌性腹膜炎患者T淋巴细胞亚群分析[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 92-101.
[7]	邓欣怡, 曾振宇, 李晓岚. 细菌群体感应信号对宿主免疫调节机制的研究进展[J]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 140-147.
[8]	郭长江, 冷建刚, 邵伟. 阿莫西林克拉维酸钾联合布地奈德治疗小儿反复细菌性呼吸道感染[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(03): 394-396.
[9]	朱伟权, 叶善平, 唐和春, 刘东宁, 鞠后琼, 仲崇晗, 黄智翔, 李太原. 机器人辅助直肠癌NOSES术后细菌学及肿瘤学结果的前瞻性研究[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 282-287.
[10]	杨艳丽, 陈昱, 赵若辰, 杜伟, 马海娟, 许珂, 张莉芸. 系统性红斑狼疮合并血流感染的危险因素及细菌学分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 694-699.
[11]	李秋琼, 薛静, 王敏, 陈芬, 肖美芳. NSE、SIL-2R、TNF-α检测对小儿病毒性脑膜炎与细菌性脑膜炎的诊断价值[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 303-307.
[12]	刘平娟, 罗科城, 吴家茵, 廖康, 胡雯雯, 陈怡丽. 神经内科重症监护室患者肠道耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌目细菌主动筛查研究[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 235-240.
[13]	胡晓蓉, 李小龙, 欧阳娟, 何思雨, 宋江勤. 不同吸附介质培养瓶的报阳时间及抗菌药物吸附性能的临床评估[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 84-89,94.
[14]	刁福强, 罗欣, 古春明, 唐玲玲. 广州某医院儿童社区获得性肺炎病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 38-44.
[15]	杨锐富, 周燕斌. 主要协同转运蛋白超家族膜转运蛋白与细菌生物膜形成的相关性研究进展[J]. 中华诊断学电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 77-81.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparative study on the detection ability of BacT/ALERT two blood culture systems and eight blood culture bottles for simulated bacteremia specimens

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparative study on the detection ability of BacT/ALERT two blood culture systems and eight blood culture bottles for simulated bacteremia specimens