ArticleAccess microbiology2019
Serum separator tube method for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight analysis.
Article in Access microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid and precise identification of bloodstream infections using a pre-treatment protocol combined with high-throughput multiplex genetic detection system.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Rapid identification of Gram-negative pathogens from positive blood cultures using MALDI-TOF MS following short-term incubation on solid media.Biomedical reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWithout appropriate treatment, bloodstream infections have a high mortality rate. Quicker identification of the microbial pathogen allows the clinician to develop an initial strategy of antimicrobial therapy. Sample preparation protocols for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-ToF MS; Bruker Daltonics for Microflex LT spectrometer) technology were evaluated in an attempt to identify pathogens directly from positive blood culture bottles and thus shorten the time to identify them. This application requires preparatory processing because blood culture bottles contain undesirable proteins. This study aimed to evaluate two methods for microbial preparation for identification by MALDI-ToF MS.
methodsThis study evaluated two methods for microbial preparation from 200 positive blood culture samples, half prepared by the differential centrifugation method and half with the serum separator tube method for identification by MALDI-ToF MS. Both methods were compared to conventional methods such as VITEK II and ChromAgar culture plates.
resultsAll Gram-negative bacteria tested were identified correctly by MALDI-ToF MS compared to conventional methods, regardless of the preparation method. However, more Gram-positive bacteria were identified when the serum separator tube method was used (83.3%) compared with the differential centrifugation method (65.3 %). Moreover, the serum separator tube protocol requires 12-15 min, while the differential centrifugation protocol requires 30-45 min.
conclusionsSample preparation using the serum separator tube method is easy to perform, fast and reliable for accurate microbial identification by MALDI-ToF MS technology.
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.