Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21752980›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical microbiology2011

Phoenix 100 versus Vitek 2 in the identification of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria: a comprehensive meta-analysis.

Kalliopi-Stavroula Chatzigeorgiou, Theodoros N Sergentanis, Sotirios Tsiodras, Stavros J Hamodrakas, Pantelis G Bagos

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Performance of the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry system for rapid identification of streptococci: a review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of clinical isolates by digital time-lapse microscopy.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Evaluation of two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry systems for identification of viridans group streptococci.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Article
  18. Emerging organisms in a tertiary healthcare set up.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2014
    Article
  19. Multi-center evaluation of the VITEK® MS system for mass spectrometric identification of non-Enterobacteriaceae Gram-negative bacilli.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kalliopi-Stavroula ChatzigeorgiouDepartment of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Theodoros N Sergentanis
Sotirios Tsiodras
Stavros J Hamodrakas
Pantelis G Bagos
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRTechnological Educational Institute of Central Greece · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phoenix 100 and Vitek 2 (operating with the current colorimetric cards) are commonly used in hospital laboratories for rapid identification of microorganisms. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare their performance on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The MEDLINE database was searched up to October 2010 for the retrieval of relevant articles. Pooled correct identification rates were derived from random-effects models, using the arcsine transformation. Separate analyses were conducted at the genus and species levels; subanalyses and meta-regression were undertaken to reveal meaningful system- and study-related modifiers. A total of 29 (6,635 isolates) and 19 (4,363 isolates) articles were eligible for Phoenix and colorimetric Vitek 2, respectively. No significant differences were observed between Phoenix and Vitek 2 either at the genus (97.70% versus 97.59%, P = 0.919) or the species (92.51% versus 88.77%, P = 0.149) level. Studies conducted with conventional comparator methods tended to report significantly better results compared to those using molecular reference techniques. Speciation of Staphylococcus aureus was significantly more accurate in comparison to coagulase-negative staphylococci by both Phoenix (99.78% versus 88.42%, P < 0.00001) and Vitek 2 (98.22% versus 91.89%, P = 0.043). Vitek 2 also reached higher correct identification rates for Gram-negative fermenters versus nonfermenters at the genus (99.60% versus 95.90%, P = 0.004) and the species (97.42% versus 84.85%, P = 0.003) level. In conclusion, the accuracy of both systems seems modified by underlying sample- and comparator method-related parameters. Future simultaneous assessment of the instruments against molecular comparator procedures may facilitate interpretation of the current observations.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive BacteriaGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumans

Identifiers

PMID21752980
PMCPMC3165577
OpenAlexW2104137669

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.