Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18495856›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008

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.

J W Snyder, G K Munier, C L Johnson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Historical, current, and emerging tools for identification and serotyping of Shigella.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advances in automated techniques to identifyAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2020
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

J W SnyderDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Louisville Hospital, 530 S Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40202, USA. jwsnyd01@gwise.louisville.edu
G K Munier
C L Johnson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Phoenix automated microbiology system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD) is designed for the rapid identification (ID) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of clinically significant human bacterial pathogens. We evaluated the performance of the Phoenix instrument in comparison with that of the MicroScan WalkAway system (Dade Behring, West Sacramento, CA) in the ID and AST of gram-negative clinical strains and challenge isolates of Enterobacteriaceae (n = 150) and nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB; 45 clinical isolates and 8 challenge isolates). ID discrepancies were resolved with the API 20E and API 20NE conventional biochemical ID systems (bioMerieux, Durham, NC). The standard disk diffusion method was used to resolve discordant AST results. The overall percentages of agreement between the Phoenix ID results and the MicroScan results at the genus and species levels for clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae were 98.7 and 97.7%, respectively; following resolution with conventional biochemical testing, the accuracy of the Phoenix system was determined to be 100%. For NFGNB, the levels of agreement were 100 and 97.7%, respectively. Both systems incorrectly identified the majority of the uncommon nonfermentative nonpseudomonal challenge isolates recovered from cystic fibrosis patients; these isolates are not included in the databases of the respective systems. For AST of Enterobacteriaceae, the rate of complete agreement between the Phoenix results and the MicroScan results was 97%; the rates of very major, major, and minor errors were 0.3, 0.2, and 2.7%, respectively. For NFGNB, the rate of complete agreement between the Phoenix results and the MicroScan results was 89.1%; the rates of very major, major, and minor errors were 0, 0.5, and 7.7%, respectively. Following the confirmatory testing of nine clinical isolates initially screened by the MicroScan system as possible extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms (seven Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates and two Escherichia coli isolates), complete agreement was achieved for eight isolates (one ESBL positive and seven negative); one false positive was obtained with the Phoenix instrument. The MicroScan system correctly detected the 10 ESBL challenge isolates, versus the 6 detected by the Phoenix system. Overall, there was good correlation between the Phoenix instrument and the MicroScan system for the ID and AST of Enterobacteriaceae and common NFGNB. The Phoenix system is a reliable method for the ID and AST of the majority of clinical strains encountered in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Until additional performance data are available, results for all Klebsiella pneumoniae or Klebsiella oxytoca and E. coli isolates screened and confirmed as ESBL producers by any automated system should be confirmed by alternate methods prior to the release of final results.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAutomationBacterial Typing TechniquesBacteriological TechniquesCystic FibrosisGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18495856
PMCPMC2446888

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.