ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2013
Multilaboratory study of the Biomic automated well-reading instrument versus MicroScan WalkAway for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Digital Slide Scanning and a Convolutional Neural Network for the Detection of Intestinal Parasites in Human Stool Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detection of antimicrobial resistance via state-of-the-art technologies versus conventional methods.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Genomic Profiling of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in ClinicalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Computer Vision and Artificial Intelligence Are Emerging Diagnostic Tools for the Clinical Microbiologist.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
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
This study compared the Biomic automated well reader results to the MicroScan WalkAway results for reading MicroScan antimicrobial susceptibility and identification panels at four different sites. Routine fresh clinical isolates and quality control (QC) organisms were tested at each study site. A total of 46,176 MicroScan panel drug-organism combinations were read. The Biomic category agreement for 3,117 Gram-negative bacteria was 98.4%, with 1.4% minor and 0.2% major discrepancies. The Biomic category agreement for 5,233 Gram-positive bacteria was 98.7%, with 0.9% minor, 0.3% major, and 0.1% very major errors. Essential agreement, defined as Biomic results that were within ±1 2-fold dilution of the MicroScan results, was 99.3% for Gram-negative bacteria and 98.3% for Gram-positive bacteria. Biomic reading of MicroScan identification panels provided an overall agreement (first- and second-choice organism match) of 99.5% with 846 Gram-negative isolates and 99.5% with 430 Gram-positive isolates. These results suggest that the Biomic automated reader can provide accurate reading of MicroScan panels and has the capability of a visual panel read for manual adjustment of results.
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.