ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
Two-center collaborative evaluation of performance of the BD phoenix automated microbiology system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of gram-negative bacteria.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phoenix 100 versus Vitek 2 in the identification of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria: a comprehensive meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Pooled it
- Infections, methods of diagnosis, and antibiotic resistance of Corynebacterium minutissimum.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Review
- Accuracy of Two Direct Antibiotic-Susceptibility Tests and Their Impact on the Optimal Treatment ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Efficient Absorbance-Based Assay for Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Rapid Electrochemical-Based PCR-Less Microbial Quantification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiling Directly From Blood and Urine With Unknown Microbial Load or Species.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Newly Developed BD Phoenix NMIC-500 Panel Using Clinical Isolates of Gram-Negative Bacilli.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Rapid Bacterial Identification, Resistance, Virulence and Type Profiling using Selected Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Carbapenem susceptibility testing errors using three automated systems, disk diffusion, Etest, and broth microdilution and carbapenem resistance genes in isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2011Article
- Evaluation of three automated systems for susceptibility testing of enterobacteria containing qnrB, qnrS, and/or aac(6')-Ib-cr.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Article
- Aminoglycoside resistance and susceptibility testing errors in Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2010Article
- Osteomyelitis of the long bones.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2009Article
- Extended-spectrum Beta-lactamase detection with different panels for automated susceptibility testing and with a chromogenic medium.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
- Acinetobacter baumannii: emergence of a successful pathogen.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2008Review
- Direct comparison of the BD phoenix system with the MicroScan WalkAway system for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Enterobacteriaceae and nonfermentative gram-negative organisms.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System (BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD) was assessed for identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of the majority of clinically encountered bacterial isolates in a European collaborative two-center trial. A total of 494 bacterial isolates including various species of the Enterobacteriaceae and 110 nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria were investigated: of these, 385 were single patient isolates, and 109 were challenge strains tested at one center. The performance of the Phoenix extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) test was also evaluated for 203 strains of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Klebsiella oxytoca included in the study. Forty-two antimicrobial drugs were tested, including members of the following drug classes: aminoglycosides, beta-lactam antibiotics, beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors, carbapenems, cephems, monobactams, folate antagonists, quinolones, and others. Phoenix system ID results were compared to those of the laboratories' routine ID systems (API 20E and API CHE, ATB ID32E, ID32GN, and VITEK 2 [bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France]); Phoenix AST results were compared to those of frozen standard broth microdilution (SBM) panels according to NCCLS (now CLSI) guidelines (NCCLS document M100-S9, approved standard M7-A4). Discrepant results were repeated in duplicate. Concordant IDs of 98.4 and 99.1% were observed for the Enterobacteriaceae and the nonfermentative group, respectively. For AST results, the overall essential agreement was 94.2%; the category agreement was 97.3%; and the very major error rate, major error rate, and minor error rate were 1.6, 0.6, and 1.9%, respectively. In terms of ESBL detection, Phoenix results were 98.5% concordant with those of the reference system, with 98.0% sensitivity and 98.7% specificity. In conclusion, the Phoenix ID results showed high agreement with results of the systems to which they were being compared: the AST performance was highly equivalent to that of the SBM reference method, and the system proved to be very accurate for the detection of ESBL producers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.