Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269022›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Utility of platforms Viteks MS and Microflex LT for the identification of complex clinical isolates that require molecular methods for their taxonomic classification.

María Florencia Rocca, Rubén Barrios, Jonathan Zintgraff, Claudia Martínez, Lucía Irazu, Carlos Vay, Mónica Prieto

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. TheInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The first case of urosepsis caused byFuture microbiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. BMJ case reports · 2021
    Article
  8. Metabolic Footprints ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. When reportingAccess microbiology · 2020
    Article
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.

María Florencia RoccaLaboratorio Bacteriología Especial, Departamento de Bacteriología, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas (INEI)-Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud (ANLIS) "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-2932-0537
Rubén BarriosLaboratorio de Bacteriología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Jonathan ZintgraffLaboratorio Bacteriología Clínica, Departamento de Bacteriología, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas (INEI)-Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud (ANLIS) "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Claudia MartínezLaboratorio Bacteriología Especial, Departamento de Bacteriología, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas (INEI)-Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud (ANLIS) "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Lucía IrazuInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas (INEI)-Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud (ANLIS) "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carlos VayInstituto de Fisiopatología y Bioquímica Clínica, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mónica PrietoLaboratorio Bacteriología Especial, Departamento de Bacteriología, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas (INEI)-Administración Nacional de Laboratorios e Institutos de Salud (ANLIS) "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán", Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry has revolutionized the clinical microbiology field in America's and Europe's industrialized countries, for being a fast, reliable and inexpensive technique. Our study is based on the comparison of the performance of two commercial platforms, Microflex LT (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) and Vitek MS (bioMérieux, Marcy l´Etoile, France) for the identification of unusual and hard-to-diagnose microorganisms in a Reference Laboratory in Argentina. During a four-month period (February-May 2018) the diagnostic efficiency and the concordance between both systems were assessed, and the results were compared with the polyphasic taxonomic identification of all isolates. The study included 265 isolates: 77 Gram-Negative Bacilli, 33 Gram-Positive Cocci, 40 Anaerobes, 35 Actinomycetales, 19 Fastidious Microorganisms and 61 Gram-Positive Bacilli. All procedures were practiced according to the manufacturer's recommendations in each case by duplicate, and strictly in parallel. Other relevant factors, such as the utility of the recommended extraction protocols, reagent stability and connectivity were also evaluated. Both systems correctly identified the majority of the isolates to species and complex level (82%, 217/265). Vitex MS achieved a higher number of correct species-level identifications between the gram-positive microorganisms; however, it presented greater difficulty in the identification of non-fermenting bacilli and a higher number of incorrect identifications when the profile of the microorganism was not represented in the commercial database. Both platforms showed an excellent performance on the identification of anaerobic bacteria and fastidious species. Both systems enabled the fast and reliable identification of most of the tested isolates and were shown to be very practical for the user.

Indexed as

Gram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaMass SpectrometryHumans

Identifiers

PMID31269022
PMCPMC6608940

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.