ArticleMicroorganisms2024
Evaluation of Autof MS2600 and MBT Smart MALDI-TOF MS Systems for Routine Identification of Clinical Bacteria and Yeasts.
Article in Microorganisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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 · 2026Article
- Integrating Machine Learning and Molecular Methods forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of microorganisms at the species level has always constituted a diagnostic challenge for clinical microbiology laboratories. The aim of the present study has been the evaluation in a real-time assay of the performance of Autobio in comparison with the Bruker mass spectrometry system for the identification of bacteria and yeasts. A total of 535 bacteria and yeast were tested in parallel with the two systems by direct smear or fast formic acid extraction for bacteria and yeasts, respectively. Discordant results were verified by 16S, ITS rRNA or specific gene sequencing. Beyond giving comparable results for bacteria with respect to the MBT smart system, Autof MS2600 mass spectrometer provided excellent accuracy for the identification of yeast species of clinical interest.
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.