Cargando…

Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ombelet, Sien, Natale, Alessandra, Ronat, Jean-Baptiste, Vandenberg, Olivier, Hardy, Liselotte, Jacobs, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7922174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33669829
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020349
_version_ 1783658629457510400
author Ombelet, Sien
Natale, Alessandra
Ronat, Jean-Baptiste
Vandenberg, Olivier
Hardy, Liselotte
Jacobs, Jan
author_facet Ombelet, Sien
Natale, Alessandra
Ronat, Jean-Baptiste
Vandenberg, Olivier
Hardy, Liselotte
Jacobs, Jan
author_sort Ombelet, Sien
collection PubMed
description 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., Streptococcus suis and Bacillus 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 (n = 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7922174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79221742021-03-03 Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings Ombelet, Sien Natale, Alessandra Ronat, Jean-Baptiste Vandenberg, Olivier Hardy, Liselotte Jacobs, Jan Diagnostics (Basel) Article 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., Streptococcus suis and Bacillus 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 (n = 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. MDPI 2021-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7922174/ /pubmed/33669829 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020349 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ombelet, Sien
Natale, Alessandra
Ronat, Jean-Baptiste
Vandenberg, Olivier
Hardy, Liselotte
Jacobs, Jan
Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title_full Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title_fullStr Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title_short Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings
title_sort evaluation of microscan bacterial identification panels for low-resource settings
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7922174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33669829
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020349
work_keys_str_mv AT ombeletsien evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings
AT natalealessandra evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings
AT ronatjeanbaptiste evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings
AT vandenbergolivier evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings
AT hardyliselotte evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings
AT jacobsjan evaluationofmicroscanbacterialidentificationpanelsforlowresourcesettings