ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Species identification of Enterococcus spp: Whole genome sequencing compared to three biochemical test-based systems and two Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Phylogenomics of novel clones ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Identification and phylogenetic analysis of Enterococcus isolates using MALDI-TOF MS and VITEK 2.AMB Express · 2023Article
- Comparison of Autof Ms1000 and EXS3000 MALDI-TOF MS Platforms for Routine Identification of Microorganisms.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Epididymo-Orchitis Caused by POM-1 Metallo-β-Lactamase-ProducingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Virulence Factor Genes and Cytotoxicity ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Predictive Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing by Next-Generation Sequencing for Periprosthetic Joint Infections: Potential and Limitations.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Species identification of Enterococcus spp: Whole genome sequencing compared to three biochemical test-based systems and two Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimHere, we evaluated the performance of two commercial MALDI-TOF MS systems and three biochemical-based systems and compared them to WGS as the gold standard for identifying isolates of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE).
methodsA total of 87 VRE clinical isolates were included. The mass spectrometers were the Microflex system with Biotyper software 3.1 and the Vitek MS system. The biochemical-based systems included the Vitek 2, Phoenix, and MicroScan WalkAway systems. WGS was performed on an Illumina MiSeq instrument using the MiSeq v3 reagent kit. Vancomycin resistance was determined according to CLSI criteria.
resultsAmong the 87 VRE, 71 and 16 were identified as Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis by WGS. All 71 E faecium were correctly identified by both mass spectrometers, as well as the Vitek 2 and Phoenix instruments. However, only 51 E faecium isolates were correctly identified by the MicroScan system. The most frequent misidentification was Enterococcus casseliflavus (n = 20). For vancomycin-resistant E faecium, the Microflex Biotyper system had the highest sensitivity (85.54%), and all instruments (except for the Microscan) had a 100% specificity and PPV. Up to 87% of E faecalis isolates were misidentified by VITEK MS and VITEK2, 81% by Microscan and Phoenix, and 75% by Bruker biotyper.
conclusionAs the coverage of type strain-genome sequence database continues to grow and the cost of DNA sequencing continues to decrease, genome-based identification can be a useful tool for diagnostic laboratories, with its superior accuracy even over MALDI-TOF and database-driven operations.
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.