ArticleEpidemiology and infection2019
Overestimated discriminatory power of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for typing of carbapenem-resistant
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Typing of clinical and reference strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and MALDI-TOF MS.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cultivation and sequencing-free protocol foriScience · 2024Article
- Evaluating molecular epidemiology of carbapenem non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates with MLST, MALDI-TOF MS, PFGE.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2023Article
- Comparison of fast Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy biotyping with whole genome sequencing-based genotyping in common nosocomial pathogens.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Occurrence of theJournal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Overestimated discriminatory power of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for typing of carbapenem-resistantEpidemiology and infection · 2020Article
- Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Carbapenem-ResistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Homology surveillance of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) is critical to monitor and prevent outbreaks of nosocomial infections. In the present study, a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation-time of flight (MALDI-TOF MS)-based method was evaluated as a rapid tool for typing CRKP in comparison with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and multi locus sequence typing (MLST). Drug-resistant phenotypes and genotypes of 44 CRKP isolates were detected by microdilution broth method and polymerase chain reaction, and typed by PFGE, MLST and MALDI-TOF MS. Simpson's Index of Diversity was used to evaluate taxonomic diversity, Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) for congruence between the typing methods and Wallace coefficients (W) for the ability of either method to predict each other. Forty-four CRKP isolates of 15 sequence types (STs) produced either NDM-1 (n = 16), NDM-5 (n = 9) or KPC-2 (n = 19) carbapenemases. PFGE differentiated these isolates into 16 distinct types, and two deoxyribonucleic acid profiles were assigned to ST337 and ST11, respectively. MALDI-TOF MS failed to clearly delineate between clusters on dendrograms based on principal components analysis and main spectrum profile. The chosen parameters resulted in a maximum ARI of 0.310 (95% CI 0.088-0.531) between MALDI-TOF MS typing and the PFGE reference, indicating a low ability of the former to correctly identify related isolates. Likewise, the maximum W coefficient of 0.367 (95% CI 0.203-0.532) showed that MALDI-TOF MS had a lower predictive power than PFGE. We conclude that MALDI-TOF MS lacks the discriminatory power necessary for clone assignment of CRKP isolates and consequently cannot be considered as a rapid and creditable method for this purpose.
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.