↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Discrepancy in MALDI-TOF MS identification of uncommon Gram-negative bacteria from lower respiratory secretions in patients with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Infection and Drug Resistance, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Discrepancy in MALDI-TOF MS identification of uncommon Gram-negative bacteria from lower respiratory secretions in patients with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Infection and Drug Resistance, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/idr.s80341
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atqah AbdulWahab, Saad J Taj-Aldeen, Emad Bashir Ibrahim, Eman Talaq, Marawan Abu-Madi, Rashmi Fotedar

Abstract

Early identification of microbial organisms from respiratory secretions of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is important to guide therapeutic decisions. The objective was to compare the accuracy of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) relative to the conventional phenotypic method in identifying common bacterial isolates, including nonfermenting Gram-negative bacteria, in a cohort of patients with CF. A total of 123 isolates from 50 patients with CF representing 14 bacterial species from respiratory specimens were identified using MALDI-TOF MS in parallel with conventional phenotypic methods. Discrepancies were confirmed by 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing in five Gram-negative isolates. The MALDI-TOF MS managed to identify 122/123 (99.2%) bacterial isolates to the genus level and 118/123 (95.9%) were identified to the species level. The MALDI-TOF MS results were 100% consistent to the species level with conventional phenotypic identification for isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and other uncommon organisms such as Chryseobacterium gleum and Enterobacter cloacae. The 5/123 (4.6%) isolates misidentified were all Gram-negative bacteria. The isolation of E. cloacae and Haemophilus paraphrohaemolyticus may extend the potentially pathogenic list of organisms isolated from patients with CF. Although the technique provides an early identification and antimicrobial therapy approach in patients with CF, limitation in the diagnosis of uncommon Gram-negative bacteria may exist.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 10 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Infection and Drug Resistance
#715
of 1,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,744
of 264,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection and Drug Resistance
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,643 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.