Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26658918›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

A Side by Side Comparison of Bruker Biotyper and VITEK MS: Utility of MALDI-TOF MS Technology for Microorganism Identification in a Public Health Reference Laboratory.

Simon Lévesque, Philippe J Dufresne, Hafid Soualhine, Marc-Christian Domingo, Sadjia Bekal, Brigitte Lefebvre, Cécile Tremblay

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of the VITEKEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Case reports in infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Simon LévesqueLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Philippe J DufresneLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Hafid SoualhineLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Marc-Christian DomingoLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Sadjia BekalLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Brigitte LefebvreLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Cécile TremblayLaboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has emerged as a rapid, highly accurate, and cost-effective method for routine identification of a wide range of microorganisms. We carried out a side by side comparative evaluation of the performance of Bruker Biotyper versus VITEK MS for identification of a large and diverse collection of microorganisms. Most difficult and/or unusual microorganisms, as well as commonly encountered microorganisms were selected, including Gram-positive and negative bacteria, mycobacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts and filamentous fungi. Six hundred forty two strains representing 159 genera and 441 species from clinical specimens previously identified at the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec (LSPQ) by reference methods were retrospectively chosen for the study. They included 254 Gram-positive bacteria, 167 Gram-negative bacteria, 109 mycobacteria and aerobic actinomycetes and 112 yeasts and moulds. MALDI-TOF MS analyses were performed on both systems according to the manufacturer's instructions. Of the 642 strains tested, the name of the genus and / or species of 572 strains were referenced in the Bruker database while 406 were present in the VITEK MS IVD database. The Biotyper correctly identified 494 (86.4%) of the strains, while the VITEK MS correctly identified 362 (92.3%) of the strains (excluding 14 mycobacteria that were not tested). Of the 70 strains not present in the Bruker database at the species level, the Biotyper correctly identified 10 (14.3%) to the genus level and 2 (2.9%) to the complex/group level. For 52 (74.2%) strains, we obtained no identification, and an incorrect identification was given for 6 (8.6%) strains. Of the 178 strains not present in the VITEK MS IVD database at the species level (excluding 71 untested mycobacteria and actinomycetes), the VITEK MS correctly identified 12 (6.8%) of the strains each to the genus and to the complex/group level. For 97 (54.5%) strains, no identification was given and for 69 (38.7%) strains, an incorrect identification was obtained. Our study demonstrates that both systems gave a high level (above 85%) of correct identification for a wide range of microorganisms. However, VITEK MS gave more misidentification when the microorganism analysed was not present in the database, compared to Bruker Biotyper. This should be taken into account when this technology is used alone for microorganism identification in a public health laboratory, where isolates received are often difficult to identify and/or unusual microorganisms.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory ServicesPublic HealthActinobacteriaBacterial Typing TechniquesClinical Laboratory TechniquesFungiGram-Negative BacteriaHumansMycobacteriumMycological Typing TechniquesQuebecReproducibility of ResultsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationYeasts

Identifiers

PMID26658918
PMCPMC4689555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.