AI Article Synopsis

  • Bacterial identification in low-resource settings is difficult, so the MicroScan panels were evaluated in this context for identifying Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms using 367 clinical isolates.
  • The accuracy was high with 94.6% of Gram-negative and 85.9% of Gram-positive isolates correctly identified, but problems arose with species not in the database and when mixing panel types.
  • There were concerns about the complexity of the instruction manual for low-resource environments, highlighting the need for improvements in usability, stability, and robustness of the identification system.

Article Abstract

Bacterial identification is challenging in low-resource settings (LRS). We evaluated the MicroScan identification panels (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) as part of Médecins Sans Frontières' Mini-lab Project. The MicroScan Dried Overnight Positive ID Type 3 (PID3) panels for Gram-positive organisms and Dried Overnight Negative ID Type 2 (NID2) panels for Gram-negative organisms were assessed with 367 clinical isolates from LRS. Robustness was studied by inoculating Gram-negative species on the Gram-positive panel and vice versa. The ease of use of the panels and readability of the instructions for use (IFU) were evaluated. Of species represented in the MicroScan database, 94.6% (185/195) of Gram-negative and 85.9% (110/128) of Gram-positive isolates were correctly identified up to species level. Of species not represented in the database (e.g., and spp.), 53.1% out of 49 isolates were incorrectly identified as non-related bacterial species. Testing of Gram-positive isolates on Gram-negative panels and vice versa ( = 144) resulted in incorrect identifications for 38.2% of tested isolates. The readability level of the IFU was considered too high for LRS. Inoculation of the panels was favorably evaluated, whereas the visual reading of the panels was considered error-prone. In conclusion, the accuracy of the MicroScan identification panels was excellent for Gram-negative species and good for Gram-positive species. Improvements in stability, robustness, and ease of use have been identified to assure adaptation to LRS constraints.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7922174PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020349DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

identification panels
12
panels
9
bacterial identification
8
low-resource settings
8
microscan identification
8
dried overnight
8
gram-negative species
8
vice versa
8
species represented
8
gram-positive isolates
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!