ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Sepsityper
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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
- Plug-and-Play Centrifuge-Only Device for Rapid Sepsis Diagnosis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Modification of the rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing from blood culture protocol for a resource-limited setting.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Immunoassay-mass spectrometry to identifyFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Bacterial identification using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in positive blood cultures: A pilot study.Journal of biological methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to further accelerate pathogen identification from positive blood cultures (BC), various sample preparation protocols to identify bacteria with MALDI-TOF MS directly from positive BCs have been developed. We evaluated an in-house method in comparison to the Sepsityper® Kit (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) as well as the benefit of an on-plate formic acid extraction step following positive signal by the BACTECTM FX system. Confirmation of identification was achieved using subcultured growing biomass used for MALDI-TOF MS analysis. A total of 113 monomicrobial positive BCs were analyzed. The rates of Gram-positive bacteria correctly identified to the genus level using in-house method and Sepsityper® Kit were 63.3% (38/60) and 81.7% (49/60), respectively (p = 0.025). Identification rates at species level for Gram-positive bacteria with in-house method and Sepsityper® kit were 30.0% (18/60) and 66.7% (40/60), respectively (p < 0.001). Identification rates of Gram-negative bacteria were similar with the in-house method and Sepsityper® Kit. Additional on-plate formic acid extraction demonstrated significant improvement in the identification rate of Gram-positive bacteria at both genus and species level for both in-house (p = 0.001, p < 0.001) and Sepsityper® Kit methods (p = 0.007, p < 0.001). Our in-house method is a candidate for laboratory routines with Sepsityper® Kit as a back-up solution when identification of Gram-positive bacteria is unsuccessful.
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.