↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of three sample preparation methods for the direct identification of bacteria in positive blood cultures by MALDI-TOF

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of three sample preparation methods for the direct identification of bacteria in positive blood cultures by MALDI-TOF
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2366-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Tanner, Jason T. Evans, Savita Gossain, Abid Hussain

Abstract

Patient mortality is significantly reduced by rapid identification of bacteria from sterile sites. MALDI-TOF can identify bacteria directly from positive blood cultures and multiple sample preparation methods are available. We evaluated three sample preparation methods and two MALDI-TOF score cut-off values. Positive blood culture bottles with organisms present in Gram stains were prospectively analysed by MALDI-TOF. Three lysis reagents (Saponin, SDS, and SepsiTyper lysis bufer) were applied to each positive culture followed by centrifugation, washing and protein extraction steps. Methods were compared using the McNemar test and 16S rDNA sequencing was used to assess discordant results. In 144 monomicrobial cultures, using ≥2.000 as the cut-off value, species level identifications were obtained from 69/144 (48%) samples using Saponin, 86/144 (60%) using SDS, and 91/144 (63%) using SepsiTyper. The difference between SDS and SepsiTyper was not statistically significant (P = 0.228). Differences between Saponin and the other two reagents were significant (P < 0.01). Using ≥1.700 plus top three results matching as the cut-off value, species level identifications were obtained from 100/144 (69%) samples using Saponin, 103/144 (72%) using SDS, and 106/144 (74%) using SepsiTyper and there was no statistical difference between the methods. No true discordances between culture and direct MALDI-TOF identification were observed in monomicrobial cultures. In 32 polymicrobial cultures, MALDI-TOF identified one organism in 34-75% of samples depending on the method. This study demonstrates two inexpensive in-house detergent lysis methods are non-inferior to a commercial kit for analysis of positive blood cultures by direct MALDI-TOF in a clinical diagnostic microbiology laboratory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Chemistry 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,443,733
of 25,101,232 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#925
of 4,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,250
of 429,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#19
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,101,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,442 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.