Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36469165›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2023

Diagnostic test accuracy of an automated device for the MALDI target preparation for microbial identification.

Abdessalam Cherkaoui, Arnaud Riat, Gesuele Renzi, Adrien Fischer, Jacques Schrenzel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating the Autof MS2600 vs. Biotyper Sirius MALDI-TOF MS: a head-to-head study for routine microbial identification in a university clinical microbiology laboratory.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Abdessalam CherkaouiBacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. abdessalam.cherkaoui@hcuge.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1801-5935
Arnaud RiatBacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Gesuele RenziBacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Adrien FischerBacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jacques SchrenzelBacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Copan Colibrí™ against the manual preparation of the MALDI targets. We analyzed 416 (31 different species) non-duplicate strains covering the most important species identified in clinical routine. We also assessed the intra-strain repeatability between the comparable methods. We then analyzed the performance of this new method after implementation in routine on 12,253 aerobic bacterial isolates and yeasts, encompassing a total of 42 different species. Among the 416 strains analyzed, 6.3% (26/416) and 10.8% (45/416) had a score value < 2 when processed by the Colibri™ and manual method, respectively. Only 5.9% (9/152) of the Gram positive rods and cocci had a score values < 2 by the Colibri™ versus 20.4% (31/152) by the manual method. We confirmed that this relative superiority observed for the Colibri™ was due primarily in the use of the formic acid protocol. For the Gram-negative bacteria, the results of both methods were comparable; 6.6% (17/256) and 4.7% (12/256) had a score value < 2 by the Colibri™ and the manual method, respectively. After implementation in routine, the results according to the Biotyper score cut-off values were distributed as follows: < 1.70: 2.5% (304/12,253), 1.70-1.79: 1.9% (227/12,253), 1.80-1.89: 3.1% (377/12,253), 1.90-1.99: 6.7% (825/12,253), and ≥ 2: 85.9% (10,520/12,253). The Colibrí™ coupled to MALDI-TOF/MS revealed good performances and higher intra-strain repeatability as compared to the manual preparation of the MALDI targets.

Indexed as

BacteriaGram-Negative BacteriaDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationAutomationCopan Colibrí™MALDI-TOF/MSWASPLab®

Identifiers

PMID36469165
PMCPMC9836989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.