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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |