↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Usefulness of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to identify pathogens, including polymicrobial samples, directly from blood culture broths

Overview of attention for article published in Infection and Drug Resistance, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Usefulness of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry to identify pathogens, including polymicrobial samples, directly from blood culture broths
Published in
Infection and Drug Resistance, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/idr.s132931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maya Hariu, Yuji Watanabe, Nozomi Oikawa, Masafumi Seki

Abstract

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS) is now widely used to detect pathogens in clinical settings in Japan. Here, we report the ability of TOF-MS to detect bacteria from blood culture (BC) broths, and compare the efficacy of TOF-MS to that of conventional culture methods. Bacteria were correctly detected from 63 monomicrobial samples within 80 minutes; results matched those obtained by conventional BC methods, although the conventional methods took 2-3 days. In addition to the 63 monomicrobial samples, another three polymicrobial samples were tested; notably, the infecting bacteria were not correctly identified in two of these three samples. To better assess the TOF-MS detection of polymicrobial samples, we tested various ratios of mixed broth samples, including combinations of the bacteria that we were unable to detect in clinical samples. Combinations of Enterobacter cloacae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were correctly detected at a culture ratio of 2:1, but not in the 3:1 mixture. These results suggested that TOF-MS is a strong tool for the rapid and correct detection of pathogens from monomicrobial BC samples, though results need to be carefully checked when handling known or suspected polymicrobial samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 12%
Lecturer 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 5 29%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,934,072
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Infection and Drug Resistance
#619
of 1,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,580
of 309,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection and Drug Resistance
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,673 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 309,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.