ArticleISRN microbiology2012
Comparison of an automated system with conventional identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
Article in ISRN microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic resistance inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Efficient Absorbance-Based Assay for Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacterales.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Rapid Flow Cytometric Antimicrobial Susceptibility Assay (FASTvet) for Veterinary Use - Preliminary Data.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of aerial microbial pollutants in Al-Haram Al-Nabawi during pilgrimage of 2013.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2017Article
- 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 · 2015Article
- Real-time optical antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was designed to compare a fully automated identification/antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) system BD Phoenix (BD) for its efficacy in rapid and accurate identification and AST with conventional manual methods and to determine if the errors reported in AST, such as the (very major errors) VME (false susceptibility), (major errors) ME (false resistance), and (minor errors) MiE (intermediate category interpretation) were within the range certified by FDA. Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility test results of eighty-five clinical isolates including both gram-positive and negative were compared on Phoenix considering the results obtained from conventional manual methods of identification and disc diffusion testing of antibiotics as standards for comparison. Phoenix performed favorably well. There was 100% concordance in identification for gram-negative isolates and 94.83% for gram-positive isolates. In seven cases, Phoenix proved better than conventional identification. For antibiotic results, categorical agreement was 98.02% for gram-positive and 95.7% for gram-negative isolates. VME was 0.33%, ME 0.66%, MiE 0.99% for gram-positive isolates and 1.23% VME, 1.23% ME, and 1.85% MiE for gram-negative isolates. Therefore, this automated system can be used as a tool to facilitate early identification and susceptibility pattern of aerobic bacteria in routine microbiology laboratories.
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.