Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18579712›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008

Multicenter evaluation of the new Vitek 2 Neisseria-Haemophilus identification card.

Robert P Rennie, Cheryl Brosnikoff, Sandy Shokoples, L Barth Reller, Stanley Mirrett, William Janda, Kathy Ristow, Ann Krilcich

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter 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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans: From Basic to Advanced Research.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Prevalence of ThermotolerantFood technology and biotechnology · 2016
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Robert P RennieMedical Microbiology Laboratory, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada. robertrennie@capitalhealth.ca
Cheryl Brosnikoff
Sandy Shokoples
L Barth Reller
Stanley Mirrett
William Janda
Kathy Ristow
Ann Krilcich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The new Neisseria-Haemophilus identification (NH) card for Vitek 2 was compared with 16S rRNA gene sequencing (16S) as the reference method for accurate identification of Neisseria spp., Haemophilus spp., and other fastidious gram-negative bacteria. Testing was performed on the Vitek 2 XL system with modified software at three clinical trial laboratories. Reproducibility was determined with nine ATCC quality control strains tested 20 times over a minimum of 10 days at all three sites. A challenge set of 30 strains with known identifications and 371 recent fresh and frozen clinical isolates were also tested. Expected positive and negative biochemical reactions were also evaluated for substrate reproducibility. All microorganisms were tested on the NH card, and all clinical and stock isolates were saved for 16S testing. All reproducibility tests yielded expected results within a 95% confidence interval. For challenge microorganisms, there was 98% overall correct identification, including 8% low discrimination, 2% incorrect identification, and 0% unidentified. For clinical strains, there was 96.5% overall correct identification, including 10.2% low discrimination, 2.7% incorrect identification, and 0.8% unidentified. The 2.7% (10/371) of clinical isolates that gave an incorrect identification consisted of 7 isolates correct to genus and 3 strains incorrect to genus. There were an additional 27 strains (primarily Neisseria species) for which the 16S identification result was different from the NH card result. These were all unclaimed species by the system. The new NH card met all performance criteria within a 95% confidence interval compared to identification of clinical isolates by 16S.

Indexed as

Bacterial Typing TechniquesDNA, BacterialHaemophilusHumansNeisseriaReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID18579712
PMCPMC2519493

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.