Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21998433›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2011

Species identification of clinical isolates of anaerobic bacteria: a comparison of two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry systems.

Ulrik Stenz Justesen, Anette Holm, Elisa Knudsen, Line Bisgaard Andersen, Thøger Gorm Jensen, Michael Kemp, Marianne Nielsine Skov, Bente Gahrn-Hansen, Jens Kjølseth Møller

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fifty years devoted to anaerobes: historical, lessons, and highlights.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Advancement in the routine identification of anaerobic bacteria by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ulrik Stenz JustesenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Odense University Hospital, Winsløwparken 21, 2, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark. ujustesen@health.sdu.dk
Anette Holm
Elisa Knudsen
Line Bisgaard Andersen
Thøger Gorm Jensen
Michael Kemp
Marianne Nielsine Skov
Bente Gahrn-Hansen
Jens Kjølseth Møller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems (Shimadzu/SARAMIS and Bruker) on a collection of consecutive clinically important anaerobic bacteria (n = 290). The Bruker system had more correct identifications to the species level (67.2% versus 49.0%), but also more incorrect identifications (7.9% versus 1.4%). The system databases need to be optimized to increase identification levels. However, MALDI-TOF MS in its present version seems to be a fast and inexpensive method for identification of most clinically important anaerobic bacteria.

Indexed as

Bacteria, AnaerobicBacterial InfectionsBacteriological TechniquesHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID21998433
PMCPMC3232989

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.