Diagnostic test accuracy of an automated device for the MALDI target preparation for microbial identification

10Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Copan Colibrí™ against the manual preparation of the MALDI targets. We analyzed 416 (31 different species) non-duplicate strains covering the most important species identified in clinical routine. We also assessed the intra-strain repeatability between the comparable methods. We then analyzed the performance of this new method after implementation in routine on 12,253 aerobic bacterial isolates and yeasts, encompassing a total of 42 different species. Among the 416 strains analyzed, 6.3% (26/416) and 10.8% (45/416) had a score value < 2 when processed by the Colibri™ and manual method, respectively. Only 5.9% (9/152) of the Gram positive rods and cocci had a score values < 2 by the Colibri™ versus 20.4% (31/152) by the manual method. We confirmed that this relative superiority observed for the Colibri™ was due primarily in the use of the formic acid protocol. For the Gram-negative bacteria, the results of both methods were comparable; 6.6% (17/256) and 4.7% (12/256) had a score value < 2 by the Colibri™ and the manual method, respectively. After implementation in routine, the results according to the Biotyper score cut-off values were distributed as follows: < 1.70: 2.5% (304/12,253), 1.70–1.79: 1.9% (227/12,253), 1.80–1.89: 3.1% (377/12,253), 1.90–1.99: 6.7% (825/12,253), and ≥ 2: 85.9% (10,520/12,253). The Colibrí™ coupled to MALDI-TOF/MS revealed good performances and higher intra-strain repeatability as compared to the manual preparation of the MALDI targets.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cherkaoui, A., Riat, A., Renzi, G., Fischer, A., & Schrenzel, J. (2023). Diagnostic test accuracy of an automated device for the MALDI target preparation for microbial identification. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 42(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-022-04531-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free