Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of the VITEK 2 System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Medically Relevant Gram-Positive Cocci

Open access
Ligozzi, Marco, Bernini, Cinzia, Bonora, Maria Grazia, de Fatima, Maria, Zuliani, Jessica, Fontana, Roberta·2002·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the new VITEK 2 system (bioMérieux) for identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing of gram-positive cocci. Clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus ( n = 100), coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) ( n = 100), Enterococcus spp. ( n = 89), Streptococcus agalactiae ( n = 29), and Streptococcus pneumoniae ( n = 66) were examined with the ID-GPC identification card and with the AST-P515 (for staphylococci), AST-P516 (for enterococci and S. agalactiae ) and AST-P506 (for pneumococci) susceptibility cards. The identification comparison methods were the API Staph for staphylococci and the API 20 Strep for streptococci and enterococci; for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the agar dilution method according to the procedure of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) was used. The VITEK 2 system correctly identified to the species level (only one choice or after simple supplementary tests) 99% of S. aureus , 96.5% of S. agalactiae , 96.9% of S. pneumoniae , 92.7% of Enterococcus faecalis , 91.3% of Staphylococcus haemolyticus , and 88% of Staphylococcus epidermidis but was least able to identify Enterococcus faecium (71.4% correct). More than 90% of gram-positive cocci were identified within 3 h. According to the NCCLS breakpoints, antimicrobial susceptibility testing with the VITEK 2 system gave 96% correct category agreement, 0.82% very major errors, 0.17% major errors, and 2.7% minor errors. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing showed category agreement from 94 to 100% for S. aureus , from 90 to 100% for CNS, from 91 to 100% for enterococci, from 96 to 100% for S. agalactiae , and from 91 to 100% for S. pneumoniae . Microorganism-antibiotic combinations that gave very major errors were CNS-erythromycin, CNS-oxacillin, enterococci-teicoplanin, and enterococci-high-concentration gentamicin. Major errors were observed for CNS-oxacillin and S. agalactiae- tetracycline combinations. In conclusion the results of this study indicate that the VITEK 2 system represents an accurate and acceptable means for performing identification and antibiotic susceptibility tests with medically relevant gram-positive cocci.

Overview

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.40.5.1681-1686.2002

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Ligozzi, M., Bernini, C., Bonora, M. G., de Fatima, M., Zuliani, J., & Fontana, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2002-05
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1681-1686
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2096784236
Cited by
265
References
0
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of the VITEK 2 System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Medically Relevant Gram-Positive Cocci. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.40.5.1681-1686.2002
The paper
Ligozzi, M., Bernini, C., Bonora, M. G., de Fatima, M., Zuliani, J., & Fontana, R. (2002). Evaluation of the VITEK 2 System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Medically Relevant Gram-Positive Cocci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.40.5.1681-1686.2002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.