ArticleJournal of biological methods2016
Performance of pyrosequencing versus MALDI-TOF MS in bacteria identification in chronic lung disease.
Article in Journal of biological methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid identification of the etiological agent in bacterial infection is necessary for correct diagnosis and appropriate therapy. In general, identification of pure cultures of bacteria using conventional phenotyping techniques requires 4-24 hours. Recently available new molecular technologies offer the potential of same day species identification once pure culture is available. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of rDNA V1 hypervariable region pyrosequencing, and the whole cell MALDI-TOF MS protein profiling in routine species identification. During the period from June 2012 to June 2014, 1.140 pure culture isolates were recovered from 402 samples from 126 patients suffering cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or bronchiectasis. All the isolates were subjected to species identification by both techniques. Unfortunately, pyrosequencing was able to reach the species level in 43.2% of isolates only, whereas MALDI-TOF was clearly superior with 96.8% respectively. The overall sensitivity values also clearly underlined the superiority of MALDI-TOF MS with 96.8% compared to 85.1% achieved by pyrosequencing. Generally, MALDI-TOF MS turned out to be the best suitable technique in routine bacterial identification, whereas pyrosequencing could be recommended as the method of choice particularly in situations where MALDI-TOF MS fails to identify rare species.
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.