ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2017
Comparison of a New Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry Platform, ASTA MicroIDSys, With Bruker Biotyper for Species Identification.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Autof MS2600 vs. Biotyper Sirius MALDI-TOF MS: a head-to-head study for routine microbial identification in a university clinical microbiology laboratory.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- A head-to-head comparison of three MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry systems with 16S rRNA gene sequencing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Identification ofYonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- "Omic" Approaches to Bacteria and Antibiotic Resistance Identification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Mass spectrometry in research laboratories and clinical diagnostic: a new era in medical mycology.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Bruker Biotyper and ASTA MicroIDSys for Species Identification in a Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Multilaboratory Evaluation of the MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry System, MicroIDSys Elite, for the Identification of Medically Important Filamentous Fungi.Mycopathologia · 2021Article
- Comparison of Autof ms1000 and Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS Platforms for Routine Identification of Clinical Microorganisms.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a new matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry system for the identification of yeast isolation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry, with its accuracy and speed, is widely used for bacterial identification. The ASTA MicroIDSys system (ASTA, Korea) was recently developed for species identification. We compared its performance with that of Bruker Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics, Germany). Microbes were recovered from sputum, urine, and pus samples from patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital in Korea from January to April 2016. Matrix solution (α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid) was used, and the peptide profiles acquired from the Microflex LT (Bruker Daltonics) and Tinkerbell LT (ASTA) were analyzed by using their respective software. From 5,322 isolates, Bruker Biotyper identified 163 species; fifty species from 4,919 isolates were identified more than 10 times, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=571), Acinetobacter baumannii (n=436), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=358), Escherichia coli (n=372), Staphylococcus aureus (n=511), S. epidermidis (n=444), Enterococcus faecium (n=262), E. faecalis (n=220), and Candida albicans (n=248). Identical results, confidence scores (≥ 2.0 for Bruker Biotyper), and acceptable scores (≥140 for ASTA MicroIDSys) were obtained for 86.1% of isolates. Of 4,267 isolates, 99.2% showed acceptable scores in both systems. Results from the ASTA MicroIDSys showed good agreement with those from the Bruker Biotyper. The ASTA MicroIDSys could reliably identify clinically important microorganisms.
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.