ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Validation of Automated Bacterial Suspension Preparation by Colibri
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolving microbiology laboratories: mastering automated culture-based processes and molecular assays, an institutional experience.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesOne of the most crucial responsibilities of clinical microbiology laboratories involves conducting precise and fast antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) on bacterial isolates, necessary to guide antibiotic therapy. Standardized disk diffusion, a manual AST method, consumes a significant amount of time and is error-prone. Total laboratory automation in microbiology should enable a lower workload, high traceability, and standardization in AST. Therefore, we examined the concordance at the categorical level between the manual reference method and a new automated approach for bacterial suspension preparation and plate streaking in AST.
methodsIn this study, we validated the automated bacterial suspension preparation by Colibri
resultsThe overall categorical agreement between the two compared methods was 96.3% (2186/2269). We identified 2.7% (62/2269) minor errors, 1.6% (17/1047) major errors, and 0.4% (4/1121) very major errors. However, it is noteworthy that after retesting the discrepant results, the major errors were reduced to 0.4% and the very major errors were reduced to 0%.
conclusionsThe combination of Colibri
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.