Cited by 69Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusCell Image Analysis Techniques

Automated Scoring of Chromogenic Media for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Use of WASPLab Image Analysis Software

Open access
Faron, Matthew L., Buchan, Blake W., Vismara, Chiara, Lacchini, Carla, Bielli, Alessandra, Gesu, Giovanni, Liebregts, Theo, van Bree, Anita +4 more·2016·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Recently, systems have been developed to create total laboratory automation for clinical microbiology. These systems allow for the automation of specimen processing, specimen incubation, and imaging of bacterial growth. In this study, we used the WASPLab to validate software that discriminates and segregates positive and negative chromogenic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) plates by recognition of pigmented colonies. A total of 57,690 swabs submitted for MRSA screening were enrolled in the study. Four sites enrolled specimens following their standard of care. Chromogenic agar used at these sites included MRSASelect (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Redmond, WA), chromID MRSA (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), and CHROMagar MRSA (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD). Specimens were plated and incubated using the WASPLab. The digital camera took images at 0 and 16 to 24 h and the WASPLab software determined the presence of positive colonies based on a hue, saturation, and value (HSV) score. If the HSV score fell within a defined threshold, the plate was called positive. The performance of the digital analysis was compared to manual reading. Overall, the digital software had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 90.7% with the specificity ranging between 90.0 and 96.0 across all sites. The results were similar using the three different agars with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity ranging between 90.7 and 92.4%. These data demonstrate that automated digital analysis can be used to accurately sort positive from negative chromogenic agar cultures regardless of the pigmentation produced.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.02778-15

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. [1]Donay JL, Mathieu D, Fernandes P, Pregermain C, Bruel P, Wargnier A, Casin I, Weill FX, Lagrange PH, Herrmann JL 2004 Evaluation of the automated phoenix system for potential routine use in the clinical microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol 42: 1542– 1546. doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.4.1542-1546.2004. 15071001 PMC387561 · DOI
  2. [2]Nakasone I, Kinjo T, Yamane N, Kisanuki K, Shiohira CM 2007 Laboratory-based evaluation of the colorimetric VITEK-2 compact system for species identification and of the advanced expert system for detection of antimicrobial resistances: VITEK-2 compact system identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 58: 191– 198. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.12.008. 17300904 · DOI
  3. [3]Naveen G, Peerapur BV 2012 Comparison of the Lowenstein-Jensen medium, the Middlebrook 7H10 medium and MB/BacT for the isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) from clinical specimens. J Clin Diagn Res 6: 1704– 1709. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2012/4603.2635. 23373033 PMC3552209 · DOI
  4. [4]Shetty N, Hill G, Ridgway GL 1998 The Vitek analyser for routine bacterial identification and susceptibility testing: protocols, problems, and pitfalls. J Clin Pathol 51: 316– 323. doi: 10.1136/jcp.51.4.316. 9659247 PMC500679 · DOI
  5. [5]Bourbeau PP, Ledeboer NA 2013 Automation in clinical microbiology. J Clin Microbiol 51: 1658– 1665. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00301-13. 23515547 PMC3716104 · DOI
  6. [6]Bourbeau PP, Swartz BL 2009 First evaluation of the WASP, a new automated microbiology plating instrument. J Clin Microbiol 47: 1101– 1106. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01963-08. 19158259 PMC2668317 · DOI
  7. [7]Mischnik A, Mieth M, Busch CJ, Hofer S, Zimmermann S 2012 First evaluation of automated specimen inoculation for wound swab samples by use of the Previ Isola system compared to manual inoculation in a routine laboratory: finding a cost-effective and accurate approach. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2732– 2736. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05501-11. 22692745 PMC3421514 · DOI
  8. [8]Morris K, Wilson C, Wilcox MH 2012 Evaluation of chromogenic meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus media: sensitivity versus turnaround time. J Hosp Infect 81: 20– 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.02.003. 22463978 · DOI
  9. [9]Anderson NW, Buchan BW, Young CL, Newton DW, Brenke C, Lapsley L, Granato PA, Ledeboer NA 2013 Multicenter clinical evaluation of VRESelect agar for identification of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium. J Clin Microbiol 51: 2758– 2760. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00979-13. 23761153 PMC3719601 · DOI
  10. [10]Joubrel C, Gendron N, Dmytruk N, Touak G, Verlaguet M, Poyart C, Reglier-Poupet H 2014 Comparative evaluation of 5 different selective media for group B streptococcus screening in pregnant women. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 80: 282– 284. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.08.005. 25249270 · DOI
  11. [11]Perez JM, Cavalli P, Roure C, Renac R, Gille Y, Freydiere AM 2003 Comparison of four chromogenic media and Hektoen agar for detection and presumptive identification of Salmonella strains in human stools. J Clin Microbiol 41: 1130– 1134. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.3.1130-1134.2003. 12624041 PMC150308 · DOI
  12. [12]Ledeboer NA, Das K, Eveland M, Roger-Dalbert C, Mailler S, Chatellier S, Dunne WM 2007 Evaluation of a novel chromogenic agar medium for isolation and differentiation of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolates. J Clin Microbiol 45: 1556– 1560. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02116-06. 17329453 PMC1865861 · DOI
  13. [13]Carson J, Lui B, Rosmus L, Rennick H, Fuller J 2009 Interpretation of MRSASelect screening agar at 24 hours of incubation. J Clin Microbiol 47: 566– 568. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01566-08. 19144795 PMC2650924 · DOI
  14. [14]Peterson JF, Doern CD, Kallstrom G, Riebe KM, Sander T, Dunne WM Jr, Ledeboer NA 2010 Evaluation of Spectra VRE, a new chromogenic agar medium designed to screen for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium. J Clin Microbiol 48: 4627– 4629. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01676-10. 20943872 PMC3008490 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faron, M. L., Buchan, B. W., Vismara, C., Lacchini, C., Bielli, A., Gesu, G., Liebregts, T., van Bree, A., Jansz, A., Soucy, G., Korver, J., & Ledeboer, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda (IT)
  • PAMM (NL)
  • PAMM Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Veldhoven, Netherlands
  • CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
  • Hamilton General Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Ledeboer, Nathan A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2016-03
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
620-624
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2284974270
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA detection, chromogenic agar, image analysis, total laboratory automation, MRSA screening
MeSH terms
Bacteriological Techniques, Chromogenic Compounds, Culture Media, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Staphylococcal Infections, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Automation, Laboratory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review