Abstract
This study evaluated the quantitative results from and quality of the inoculation patterns of urine specimens produced by two automated instruments, the Copan WASP and the BD InoqulA. Five hundred twenty-six urine samples submitted in 10-ml canisters containing boric acid were processed within 30 min on an InoqulA instrument plating 10 μl of specimen, and on two WASP instruments, one plating 1 μl of specimen (WASP-1), and the second plating 10 μl of WASP (WASP-10). All samples were incubated, analyzed, and digitally imaged using the BD Kiestra total lab automation system. The results were evaluated using a quantitative protocol and assessed for the presence or absence of ≥5 distinct colonies. Separate studies were conducted using quality control (QC) organisms to determine the relative accuracy of WASP-1, WASP-10, and InoqulA instruments compared to the results obtained with a calibrated pipette. The results with QC organisms were calculated as the ratios of the counts of the automated instruments divided by the counts for the calibrated pipette (the gold standard method). The ratios for the InoqulA instrument were closest to 1.0, with the smallest standard deviations indicating that compared to a calibrated pipette, the InoqulA results were more accurate than those with the WASP instrument. For clinical samples, the WASP instruments produced higher colony counts and more commensals than the InoqulA instrument, with differences most notable for WASP-1. The InoqulA instrument was significantly better at dispersing organisms with counts of ≥10(5) bacteria/ml of urine than were the WASP-1 and WASP-10 instruments (P < 0.05). Our results suggest that the InoqulA quantitative results are more accurate than the WASP results, and, moreover, the number of isolated colonies produced by the InoqulA instrument was significantly greater than that produced by the WASP instrument.