ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2026
Comparative analytical performance of Autof MS2600 and Biotyper Sirius for rapid MALDI-TOF MS identification of microorganisms from positive blood cultures.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionBloodstream infections represent a major medical emergency, in which rapid and accurate pathogen identification is essential for optimizing therapy. This study evaluates the analytical performance of the Autof MS2600 and Biotyper Sirius (Bruker) for the identification of microorganisms directly from positive blood culture.
methodsA prospective study was conducted over 7 weeks at the Brussels University Hospital laboratory, including all new episodes of bacteremia. Practical aspects and three preparation protocols were compared: a commercial kit and an in-house pretreatment protocol on the Autof MS2600, and an in-house pretreatment protocol on the Sirius system.
resultsA total of 157 bloodstream infection episodes were analyzed, including 64 Gram-negative bacteria, 90 Gram-positive bacteria, and 3 yeasts. Correct species-level identification rates were 62.4% using the Autobio kit, 73.2% using the Autof MS2600 with the in-house protocol, and 72.6% using the Sirius system. In-house protocols performed significantly better than the commercial kit (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between the two in-house protocols (p = 1.000). Performance was higher for Gram-negative bacteria (85.9% with in-house vs. 75.0% with the kit) than for Gram-positive bacteria (66.7% vs. 55.6%). The Sirius system showed the highest non-identification rate (25.5%), compared with the Autof MS2600 (11.5% with the in-house and 16.6% with the kit). The in-house pretreatment was faster than the kit-based protocol (19 vs. 40 min).
conclusionIn-house pretreatment protocols significantly improve and accelerate direct microbial identification from positive blood cultures, with comparable performance between platforms. Differences in non-identification rates mainly reflect system-specific scoring thresholds and algorithmic approaches. In this context, the choice of platform may be based on practical considerations, although this should be interpreted in light of the study design and sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42149375What 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.