ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
A dual-phase strategy to integrate the VITEK MS RUO database into routine clinical practice: from validation of analytical performance to implementation of an automated workflow.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection 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
Background: Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is pivotal in clinical microbiology. The VITEK MS Research Use Only (RUO) database offers broader species coverage, yet its clinical adoption is hindered by insufficient performance validation against the approved Objective: This two-phase study first aimed to evaluate the concordance and supplementary performance of the RUO database compared to the IVD database, and subsequently to develop and validate an automated integrated workflow to enhance laboratory efficiency. Methods: In Phase 1 (Mar 2021-Jun 2022), parallel manual testing of 2,432 isolates was performed with both databases to analyze concordance. Based on these results, an in-house automated relay software was developed to parse IVD results and fully automate RUO reanalysis. Phase 2 (Jul-Nov 2022) prospectively incorporated 3,954 isolates to implement and assess the "IVD screening - automated RUO reanalysis" workflow. Results: Phase 1 demonstrated high RUO-IVD concordance (95.7% species/genus agreement). The RUO database correctly identified 98.9% of isolates and provided valid supplementary identification for 84.4% (108/128) of IVD-failed cases, with Tier 2 contributing 28.9%. Phase 2 revealed that the integrated workflow increased the overall identification rate from 95.5% to 98.7%, with Tier 2 contributing an additional 14.5%. The automated software reduced reanalysis turnaround time by > 75%, saving consumables and labor. Conclusion: The VITEK MS RUO database is a reliable and complementary tool to the IVD database. Integration with automated software creates an efficient, compliant clinical workflow, providing a practical model to enhance pathogen identification for infectious disease management. This two-phase study first sought to evaluate the concordance and supplemental identification capacity of two databases (Phase 1). Based on these performance results, an automated integrated workflow was then developed, implemented, and validated for its diagnostic efficacy and laboratory efficiency in a clinical setting (Phase 2).
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.