ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008
Multicenter evaluation of the new Vitek 2 Neisseria-Haemophilus identification card.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacterial isolates from patients attending the outpatient department of university of Cape Coast hospital, Ghana: A retrospective study between 2013-2015.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans: From Basic to Advanced Research.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Comparative genomic analysis identifies X-factor (haemin)-independentMicrobial genomics · 2020Article
- Prevalence of ThermotolerantFood technology and biotechnology · 2016Article
- Difficult identification of Haemophilus influenzae, a typical cause of upper respiratory tract infections, in the microbiological diagnostic routine.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2015Review
- Comparison of 16S rRNA sequencing with biochemical testing for species-level identification of clinical isolates of Neisseria spp.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2014Article
- Difficulties in species identification within the genus Haemophilus - A pilot study addressing a significant problem for routine diagnostics.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2014Article
- Classification, identification, and clinical significance of Haemophilus and Aggregatibacter species with host specificity for humans.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2014Review
- Accurate identification of fastidious Gram-negative rods: integration of both conventional phenotypic methods and 16S rRNA gene analysis.BMC microbiology · 2013Article
- Article
- Rapid identification of pathogens from positive blood cultures by multiplex polymerase chain reaction using the FilmArray system.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2012Article
- Fastidious Gram-Negatives: Identification by the Vitek 2 Neisseria-Haemophilus Card and by Partial 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Analysis.The open microbiology journal · 2010Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.