Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17005752›Full record

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.

Maria Grazia Menozzi, Ulrich Eigner, Silvia Covan, Sabina Rossi, Pietro Somenzi, Giuseppe Dettori, Carlo Chezzi, Anne-Marie Fahr

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Osteomyelitis of the long bones.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2009
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria Grazia MenozziSection of Microbiology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Parma, Viale Antonio Gramsci, 14, 43100 Parma, Italy. mariagrazia.menozzi@unipr.it
Ulrich Eigner
Silvia Covan
Sabina Rossi
Pietro Somenzi
Giuseppe Dettori
Carlo Chezzi
Anne-Marie Fahr
University of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bacteriological TechniquesAutomationBacterial Typing TechniquesEnterobacteriaceaeGram-Negative BacteriaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID17005752
PMCPMC1698323
OpenAlexW2166850065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.