ArticleBMC microbiology2020
Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analytical performance of Autof MS2600 and Biotyper Sirius for rapid MALDI-TOF MS identification of microorganisms from positive blood cultures.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas sp. PK-RTE-24 isolated from lettuce.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Autof MS2600 and MBT Smart MALDI-TOF MS Systems for Routine Identification of Clinical Bacteria and Yeasts.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Autof ms1000 mass spectrometry for rapid clinical identification of filamentous fungi.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Zybio EXS3000 mass spectrometry in routine identification of Clinical isolates.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Microbial Identification in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Using MALDI-TOF-MS.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Autof ms1000 and Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS Platforms for Routine Identification of Clinical Microorganisms.BioMed research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the accuracy and performance of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in bacteria and yeast identification, 2342 isolates were obtained from microbial cultures of clinical specimens (e.g. blood, cerebrospinal fluid, respiratory tract samples, lumbar puncture fluid, wound samples, stool, and urine) collected in 2019 in Henan Provincial People's Hospital. Repetitive strains from the same patient were excluded. We tested the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper mass spectrometry systems and the classical biochemical identification system VITEK 2/API 20C AUX. Inconsistencies in strain identification among the three systems were identified by 16S rDNA and gene sequencing.
resultsAt the species level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems had isolate identification accuracies of 98.9 and 98.5%, respectively. At the genus level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems were 99.7 and 99.4% accurate, respectively. The instruments did not significantly differ in identification accuracy at either taxonomic level. The frequencies of unreliable identification were 1.1% (26/2342) for the Autof MS1000 and 1.5% (34/2342) for the Bruker Biotyper. In vitro experiments demonstrated that the coincidence rate of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of five types of bacteria was > 93%, the identification error rate was < 3%, and the no identification rate was 0. This indicates that the Autof MS1000 system is acceptable for identification.
conclusionsThe Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer can be utilised to identify clinical isolates. However, an upgradation of the database is recommended to correctly identify rare strains.
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.