schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Performances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides against manual microscopy. Four hundred forty-three identified Gram-stained slides were included in this study. When both methods agreed, we considered the results as correct, and no... Full description

Journal Title: European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases 2021-05-08, Vol.40 (10), p.2171-2176
Main Author: Fischer, Adrien
Other Authors: Azam, Nouria , Rasga, Lara , Barras, Valérie , Tangomo, Manuela , Renzi, Gesuele , Vuilleumier, Nicolas , Schrenzel, Jacques , Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
Publisher: Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
ID: ISSN: 0934-9723
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33963927
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2524356991
title: Performances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy
format: Article
creator:
  • Fischer, Adrien
  • Azam, Nouria
  • Rasga, Lara
  • Barras, Valérie
  • Tangomo, Manuela
  • Renzi, Gesuele
  • Vuilleumier, Nicolas
  • Schrenzel, Jacques
  • Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
subjects:
  • Automation
  • Automation - instrumentation
  • Automation - methods
  • Bacteria - chemistry
  • Bacteria - isolation & purification
  • Bacterial Infections - microbiology
  • Biomedical and Life Sciences
  • Biomedicine
  • Blood
  • Digital imaging
  • Gentian Violet - chemistry
  • Gram stain
  • Humans
  • Internal Medicine
  • Medical examination
  • Medical Microbiology
  • Microscope and microscopy
  • Microscopy
  • Microscopy - instrumentation
  • Microscopy - methods
  • Morphology
  • Original Article
  • Phenazines - chemistry
  • Quality control
  • Respiratory tract
  • Staining and Labeling - methods
ispartof: European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 2021-05-08, Vol.40 (10), p.2171-2176
description: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides against manual microscopy. Four hundred forty-three identified Gram-stained slides were included in this study. When both methods agreed, we considered the results as correct, and no further examination was carried out. Whenever the methods gave discrepant results, we reviewed the digital images and the glass slides by manual microscopy to avoid incorrectly read smears. The final result was a consensus of multiple independent reader interpretations. Among the 443 slides analyzed in this study, 101 (22.8%) showed discrepant results between the compared methods. The rates of discrepant results according to the specimen types were 5.7% (9/157) for positive blood cultures, 42% (60/142) for respiratory tract specimens, and 22% (32/144) for sterile site specimens. After a subsequent review of the discrepant slides, the final rate of discrepancies dropped to 7.0% (31/443). The overall agreement between the compared methods and the culture results reached 78% (345/443) and 79% (349/443) for manual microscopy and automated digital imaging, respectively. According to culture results, the specificity for automated digital imaging and manual microscopy were 90.8% and 87.7% respectively. In contrast, sensitivity was 84.1% for the two compared methods. The discrepant results were mostly encountered with microorganism morphologies of rare occurrence. The results reported in this study emphasize that on-screen reading is challenging, since the recognition of morphologies on-screen can appear different as compared to routine manual microscopy. Monitoring of Gram stain errors, which is facilitated by automated digital imaging, remains crucial for the quality control of reported Gram stain results.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0934-9723
fulltext: no_fulltext
issn:
  • 0934-9723
  • 1435-4373
url: Link


@attributes
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
RANK2.571697
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourceidgale_proqu
recordidTN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2524356991
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
galeidA676031939
sourcerecordidA676031939
originalsourceidFETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ffe8ebb47f3d317d6c3d838f663d0b86d97fc649903dec236aec6a6c298ba1b0
addsrcrecordideNp9kU9rFTEUxYMo9ln9Ai5kwI2b1CR3XjJZllKrUNBF9yGTP2PKzOQ1mUH67b3jVAUXEkgg93cO995DyFvOLjhj6mPFW0vKBKesFQBUPCMH3sKRtqDgOTkwDS3VSsAZeVXrPUNRp9RLcgagJWihDuThWygxl8nOLtQmx8auS57sEnzj05AWOzZpskOah614U-xE62LTjPU6Jo-aH2n53uSZVldCmJsSrN9oOyBVlwadVzSZkiu5unx6fE1eRDvW8ObpPSd3n67vrj7T2683X64ub6mDo1pojKELfd-qCB648tKB76CLUoJnfSe9VtHJVmsGPjgB0gYnrXRCd73lPTsnH3bbU8kPa6iLmVJ1YRztHPJajTgK3JTUmiP6_h_0Pq9lxuaQUqC5BKmRutipwY7BpDnmpViHxwccLs8hJvy_lEoy4Bo2gdgF2-S1hGhOBXdZHg1nZgvQ7AEaDND8CtAIFL176mXtp-D_SH4nhgDsQMXSPITyt9n_2P4EiCanWQ
sourcetypeAggregation Database
isCDItrue
recordtypearticle
pqid2573916369
display
typearticle
titlePerformances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy
creatorFischer, Adrien ; Azam, Nouria ; Rasga, Lara ; Barras, Valérie ; Tangomo, Manuela ; Renzi, Gesuele ; Vuilleumier, Nicolas ; Schrenzel, Jacques ; Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
creatorcontribFischer, Adrien ; Azam, Nouria ; Rasga, Lara ; Barras, Valérie ; Tangomo, Manuela ; Renzi, Gesuele ; Vuilleumier, Nicolas ; Schrenzel, Jacques ; Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
descriptionThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides against manual microscopy. Four hundred forty-three identified Gram-stained slides were included in this study. When both methods agreed, we considered the results as correct, and no further examination was carried out. Whenever the methods gave discrepant results, we reviewed the digital images and the glass slides by manual microscopy to avoid incorrectly read smears. The final result was a consensus of multiple independent reader interpretations. Among the 443 slides analyzed in this study, 101 (22.8%) showed discrepant results between the compared methods. The rates of discrepant results according to the specimen types were 5.7% (9/157) for positive blood cultures, 42% (60/142) for respiratory tract specimens, and 22% (32/144) for sterile site specimens. After a subsequent review of the discrepant slides, the final rate of discrepancies dropped to 7.0% (31/443). The overall agreement between the compared methods and the culture results reached 78% (345/443) and 79% (349/443) for manual microscopy and automated digital imaging, respectively. According to culture results, the specificity for automated digital imaging and manual microscopy were 90.8% and 87.7% respectively. In contrast, sensitivity was 84.1% for the two compared methods. The discrepant results were mostly encountered with microorganism morphologies of rare occurrence. The results reported in this study emphasize that on-screen reading is challenging, since the recognition of morphologies on-screen can appear different as compared to routine manual microscopy. Monitoring of Gram stain errors, which is facilitated by automated digital imaging, remains crucial for the quality control of reported Gram stain results.
identifier
0ISSN: 0934-9723
1EISSN: 1435-4373
2DOI: 10.1007/s10096-021-04233-2
3PMID: 33963927
languageeng
publisherBerlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
subjectAutomation ; Automation - instrumentation ; Automation - methods ; Bacteria - chemistry ; Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Bacterial Infections - microbiology ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Blood ; Digital imaging ; Gentian Violet - chemistry ; Gram stain ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Medical examination ; Medical Microbiology ; Microscope and microscopy ; Microscopy ; Microscopy - instrumentation ; Microscopy - methods ; Morphology ; Original Article ; Phenazines - chemistry ; Quality control ; Respiratory tract ; Staining and Labeling - methods
ispartofEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 2021-05-08, Vol.40 (10), p.2171-2176
rights
0The Author(s) 2021
12021. The Author(s).
2COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer
3The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
lds50peer_reviewed
oafree_for_read
citesFETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ffe8ebb47f3d317d6c3d838f663d0b86d97fc649903dec236aec6a6c298ba1b0
orcidid0000-0002-1801-5935
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
thumbnail$$Usyndetics_thumb_exl
backlink$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33963927$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
search
creatorcontrib
0Fischer, Adrien
1Azam, Nouria
2Rasga, Lara
3Barras, Valérie
4Tangomo, Manuela
5Renzi, Gesuele
6Vuilleumier, Nicolas
7Schrenzel, Jacques
8Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
title
0Performances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy
1European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases
addtitle
0Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
1Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
descriptionThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides against manual microscopy. Four hundred forty-three identified Gram-stained slides were included in this study. When both methods agreed, we considered the results as correct, and no further examination was carried out. Whenever the methods gave discrepant results, we reviewed the digital images and the glass slides by manual microscopy to avoid incorrectly read smears. The final result was a consensus of multiple independent reader interpretations. Among the 443 slides analyzed in this study, 101 (22.8%) showed discrepant results between the compared methods. The rates of discrepant results according to the specimen types were 5.7% (9/157) for positive blood cultures, 42% (60/142) for respiratory tract specimens, and 22% (32/144) for sterile site specimens. After a subsequent review of the discrepant slides, the final rate of discrepancies dropped to 7.0% (31/443). The overall agreement between the compared methods and the culture results reached 78% (345/443) and 79% (349/443) for manual microscopy and automated digital imaging, respectively. According to culture results, the specificity for automated digital imaging and manual microscopy were 90.8% and 87.7% respectively. In contrast, sensitivity was 84.1% for the two compared methods. The discrepant results were mostly encountered with microorganism morphologies of rare occurrence. The results reported in this study emphasize that on-screen reading is challenging, since the recognition of morphologies on-screen can appear different as compared to routine manual microscopy. Monitoring of Gram stain errors, which is facilitated by automated digital imaging, remains crucial for the quality control of reported Gram stain results.
subject
0Automation
1Automation - instrumentation
2Automation - methods
3Bacteria - chemistry
4Bacteria - isolation & purification
5Bacterial Infections - microbiology
6Biomedical and Life Sciences
7Biomedicine
8Blood
9Digital imaging
10Gentian Violet - chemistry
11Gram stain
12Humans
13Internal Medicine
14Medical examination
15Medical Microbiology
16Microscope and microscopy
17Microscopy
18Microscopy - instrumentation
19Microscopy - methods
20Morphology
21Original Article
22Phenazines - chemistry
23Quality control
24Respiratory tract
25Staining and Labeling - methods
issn
00934-9723
11435-4373
fulltextfalse
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2021
recordtypearticle
recordideNp9kU9rFTEUxYMo9ln9Ai5kwI2b1CR3XjJZllKrUNBF9yGTP2PKzOQ1mUH67b3jVAUXEkgg93cO995DyFvOLjhj6mPFW0vKBKesFQBUPCMH3sKRtqDgOTkwDS3VSsAZeVXrPUNRp9RLcgagJWihDuThWygxl8nOLtQmx8auS57sEnzj05AWOzZpskOah614U-xE62LTjPU6Jo-aH2n53uSZVldCmJsSrN9oOyBVlwadVzSZkiu5unx6fE1eRDvW8ObpPSd3n67vrj7T2683X64ub6mDo1pojKELfd-qCB648tKB76CLUoJnfSe9VtHJVmsGPjgB0gYnrXRCd73lPTsnH3bbU8kPa6iLmVJ1YRztHPJajTgK3JTUmiP6_h_0Pq9lxuaQUqC5BKmRutipwY7BpDnmpViHxwccLs8hJvy_lEoy4Bo2gdgF2-S1hGhOBXdZHg1nZgvQ7AEaDND8CtAIFL176mXtp-D_SH4nhgDsQMXSPITyt9n_2P4EiCanWQ
startdate20210508
enddate20210508
creator
0Fischer, Adrien
1Azam, Nouria
2Rasga, Lara
3Barras, Valérie
4Tangomo, Manuela
5Renzi, Gesuele
6Vuilleumier, Nicolas
7Schrenzel, Jacques
8Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
general
0Springer Berlin Heidelberg
1Springer
2Springer Nature B.V
scope
0CGR
1CUY
2CVF
3ECM
4EIF
5NPM
6AAYXX
7CITATION
8BSHEE
97QL
107U9
11C1K
12H94
13K9.
14M7N
157X8
orcididhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1801-5935
sort
creationdate20210508
titlePerformances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy
authorFischer, Adrien ; Azam, Nouria ; Rasga, Lara ; Barras, Valérie ; Tangomo, Manuela ; Renzi, Gesuele ; Vuilleumier, Nicolas ; Schrenzel, Jacques ; Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
facets
frbrtype5
frbrgroupidcdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-ffe8ebb47f3d317d6c3d838f663d0b86d97fc649903dec236aec6a6c298ba1b0
rsrctypearticles
prefilterarticles
languageeng
creationdate2021
topic
0Automation
1Automation - instrumentation
2Automation - methods
3Bacteria - chemistry
4Bacteria - isolation & purification
5Bacterial Infections - microbiology
6Biomedical and Life Sciences
7Biomedicine
8Blood
9Digital imaging
10Gentian Violet - chemistry
11Gram stain
12Humans
13Internal Medicine
14Medical examination
15Medical Microbiology
16Microscope and microscopy
17Microscopy
18Microscopy - instrumentation
19Microscopy - methods
20Morphology
21Original Article
22Phenazines - chemistry
23Quality control
24Respiratory tract
25Staining and Labeling - methods
toplevelpeer_reviewed
creatorcontrib
0Fischer, Adrien
1Azam, Nouria
2Rasga, Lara
3Barras, Valérie
4Tangomo, Manuela
5Renzi, Gesuele
6Vuilleumier, Nicolas
7Schrenzel, Jacques
8Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
collection
0Medline
1MEDLINE
2MEDLINE (Ovid)
3MEDLINE
4MEDLINE
5PubMed
6CrossRef
7Academic OneFile (A&I only)
8Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)
9Virology and AIDS Abstracts
10Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
11AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts
12ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
13Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)
14MEDLINE - Academic
jtitleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextno_fulltext
addata
au
0Fischer, Adrien
1Azam, Nouria
2Rasga, Lara
3Barras, Valérie
4Tangomo, Manuela
5Renzi, Gesuele
6Vuilleumier, Nicolas
7Schrenzel, Jacques
8Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
atitlePerformances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy
jtitleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases
stitleEur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
addtitleEur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
date2021-05-08
risdate2021
volume40
issue10
spage2171
epage2176
pages2171-2176
issn0934-9723
eissn1435-4373
abstractThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performances of the automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides against manual microscopy. Four hundred forty-three identified Gram-stained slides were included in this study. When both methods agreed, we considered the results as correct, and no further examination was carried out. Whenever the methods gave discrepant results, we reviewed the digital images and the glass slides by manual microscopy to avoid incorrectly read smears. The final result was a consensus of multiple independent reader interpretations. Among the 443 slides analyzed in this study, 101 (22.8%) showed discrepant results between the compared methods. The rates of discrepant results according to the specimen types were 5.7% (9/157) for positive blood cultures, 42% (60/142) for respiratory tract specimens, and 22% (32/144) for sterile site specimens. After a subsequent review of the discrepant slides, the final rate of discrepancies dropped to 7.0% (31/443). The overall agreement between the compared methods and the culture results reached 78% (345/443) and 79% (349/443) for manual microscopy and automated digital imaging, respectively. According to culture results, the specificity for automated digital imaging and manual microscopy were 90.8% and 87.7% respectively. In contrast, sensitivity was 84.1% for the two compared methods. The discrepant results were mostly encountered with microorganism morphologies of rare occurrence. The results reported in this study emphasize that on-screen reading is challenging, since the recognition of morphologies on-screen can appear different as compared to routine manual microscopy. Monitoring of Gram stain errors, which is facilitated by automated digital imaging, remains crucial for the quality control of reported Gram stain results.
copBerlin/Heidelberg
pubSpringer Berlin Heidelberg
pmid33963927
doi10.1007/s10096-021-04233-2
orcididhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1801-5935
oafree_for_read