FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
The veterinary quarterly2025; 45(1); 2538873; doi: 10.1080/01652176.2025.2538873

Accuracy of two Sepsityper MALDI-TOF MS methods for bacterial identification in bloodstream infections in dogs, foals, and calves using Bayesian latent class model.

Abstract: Accurate diagnosis of bloodstream infections is crucial for survival and antimicrobial de-escalation in veterinary medicine. Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry enables faster identification of bacteria in BSIs. This study aimed to compare diagnostic accuracy of two Sepsityper methods (Rapid Sepsityper and Sepsityper Extraction) with conventional culture method for bacterial identification in clinical samples. Mean time-to-positivity and frequency of bacteria in BSIs were also determined. This diagnostic test study used bloodstream infection samples from 385 critically ill animals (121 dogs, 119 foals, and 145 calves) admitted to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent (October 2021-February 2024). Accuracy was compared using Bayesian latent class model with priors for sensitivity (99.9%) and specificity (96.0%) based on literature, and a prevalence of 26.0%. Conventional culture method identified 173 bacteria with (19.1%,33/173), spp. (12.1%,21/173) and spp. (8.1%,14/173) being most common. Sensitivity of Rapid Sepsityper, Sepsityper Extraction, and conventional culture method was 62.1%, 86.1%, and 97.4%, respectively. Specificity was 94.3%, 90.4% and 92.3%, and accuracy was 85.8%, 89.3%, and 93.6%, respectively. Mean time-to-positivity and ±standard deviation for blood cultures flagging positive was 21h25min ±17.8h. Rapid Sepsityper identified bacteria in approximately 30min, while Sepsityper Extraction method required around 50min, and conventional culture method needed 12-48h. Altogether, Sepsityper Extraction shows promise given the sensitivity and results were delivered more rapidly than conventional culture. Enhancing diagnostic workflow, resulting in a better prognosis, reduced hospital stays, and lower healthcare costs due to more rational use of (critically important) antimicrobials.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-08-17 PubMed ID: 40819314PubMed Central: PMC12360051DOI: 10.1080/01652176.2025.2538873Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study compared two rapid bacterial identification methods (Rapid Sepsityper and Sepsityper Extraction) using MALDI-TOF MS to the conventional culture method for detecting bloodstream infections in dogs, foals, and calves, evaluating their accuracy and speed of diagnosis.

Background and Purpose

  • Bloodstream infections (BSIs) in animals require fast and accurate identification of the causative bacteria to improve survival chances and guide appropriate antimicrobial therapy.
  • Traditional culture methods, though accurate, are time-consuming (12-48 hours to yield results).
  • Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a technology that enables rapid bacterial identification.
  • The Sepsityper kit, used with MALDI-TOF MS, offers methods to directly identify bacteria from positive blood cultures faster than conventional culture.
  • This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two different Sepsityper methods—Rapid Sepsityper and Sepsityper Extraction—against the conventional culture method using a Bayesian latent class model to assess accuracy without assuming any method as a perfect gold standard.

Study Design and Data Collection

  • Samples were collected from 385 critically ill animals admitted between October 2021 and February 2024 at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent, including:
    • 121 dogs
    • 119 foals
    • 145 calves
  • Bloodstream infection samples were tested using the two Sepsityper MALDI-TOF MS methods and the conventional culture method.
  • Time-to-positivity (the time for blood cultures to flag positive) and bacterial species distribution were also recorded.

Data Analysis: Bayesian Latent Class Modeling

  • This method allows estimating diagnostic test parameters (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) without assuming one test as perfect gold standard.
  • Priors for the model were based on literature values:
    • Sensitivity prior: 99.9%
    • Specificity prior: 96.0%
    • Prevalence prior: 26.0%

Results: Bacterial Identification and Frequencies

  • The conventional culture method identified 173 bacteria from the samples.
  • Most common bacteria found:
    • One species at 19.1% of isolates
    • Second species at 12.1%
    • Third species at 8.1%
  • (Note: Bacterial species names were omitted in the abstract.)

Diagnostic Performance

  • Sensitivity (ability to correctly detect infected samples):
    • Rapid Sepsityper: 62.1%
    • Sepsityper Extraction: 86.1%
    • Conventional Culture: 97.4%
  • Specificity (ability to correctly identify uninfected samples):
    • Rapid Sepsityper: 94.3%
    • Sepsityper Extraction: 90.4%
    • Conventional Culture: 92.3%
  • Overall Accuracy:
    • Rapid Sepsityper: 85.8%
    • Sepsityper Extraction: 89.3%
    • Conventional Culture: 93.6%

Time to Results

  • Mean time-to-positivity for blood culture bottles: approximately 21 hours 25 minutes, with a large standard deviation (±17.8 hours), indicating variability.
  • Rapid Sepsityper delivered bacterial identification in about 30 minutes after positive culture detection.
  • Sepsityper Extraction required around 50 minutes for identification.
  • Conventional culture method took 12 to 48 hours for bacterial identification after culture.

Interpretation and Implications

  • The Sepsityper Extraction method showed improved sensitivity compared to Rapid Sepsityper and delivered results significantly faster than the conventional culture method, balancing accuracy and speed.
  • Rapid Sepsityper, while faster, had notably lower sensitivity, which may limit its use as a standalone diagnostic method.
  • The faster turnaround time of Sepsityper methods can lead to earlier antimicrobial therapy adjustments — important for de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics to more targeted treatments.
  • Earlier diagnosis can improve clinical outcomes, reduce hospital stays, and lower healthcare costs.
  • The use of more rational antimicrobial use may help in combating antimicrobial resistance, especially in veterinary settings where critically important antimicrobials are used.

Conclusions

  • The Sepsityper Extraction method combined with MALDI-TOF MS represents a promising diagnostic tool for rapid identification of bacteria in bloodstream infections in veterinary patients.
  • Further optimization and clinical implementation could enhance diagnostic workflows and promote better prognoses in animals with BSIs.

Cite This Article

APA
Castelain D, Bokma J, Pas ML, Verbanck S, Paepe D, Pardon B, Boyen F. (2025). Accuracy of two Sepsityper MALDI-TOF MS methods for bacterial identification in bloodstream infections in dogs, foals, and calves using Bayesian latent class model. Vet Q, 45(1), 2538873. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2025.2538873

Publication

The veterinary quarterly
ISSN: 1875-5941
NlmUniqueID: 7909485
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 45
Issue: 1
Pages: 2538873
PII: 2538873

Researcher Affiliations

Castelain, Donatienne
  • Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Bokma, Jade
  • Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
  • Veterinary Practice Venhei, Kasterlee, Belgium.
Pas, Mathilde Laetitia
  • Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Verbanck, Serge
  • Department of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Paepe, Dominique
  • Small Animal Department, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Pardon, Bart
  • Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Boyen, Filip
  • Department of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization / veterinary
  • Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization / methods
  • Bayes Theorem
  • Cattle
  • Dogs
  • Horse Diseases / microbiology
  • Horse Diseases / diagnosis
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Dog Diseases / microbiology
  • Dog Diseases / diagnosis
  • Cattle Diseases / microbiology
  • Cattle Diseases / diagnosis
  • Bacteremia / veterinary
  • Bacteremia / diagnosis
  • Bacteremia / microbiology
  • Latent Class Analysis
  • Bacteria / isolation & purification

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 61 references
  1. Abd El-Aziz NK, Gharib AA, Mohamed EAA, Hussein AH. Real-time PCR versus MALDI-TOF MS and culture-based techniques for diagnosis of bloodstream and pyogenic infections in humans and animals. J Appl Microbiol 130(5):1630–1644.
    doi: 10.1111/jam.14862pubmed: 33073430google scholar: lookup
  2. Becker P, Normand AC, Vanantwerpen G, Vanrobaeys M, Haesendonck R, Vercammen F, Stubbe D, Piarroux R, Hendrickx M. Identification of fungal isolates by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in veterinary practice: validation of a web application. J Vet Diagn Invest 31(3):471–474.
    doi: 10.1177/1040638719835577pmc: PMC6838695pubmed: 30943879google scholar: lookup
  3. Beganovic M, Costello M, Wieczorkiewicz SM. Effect of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) alone versus MALDI-TOF MS combined with real-time antimicrobial stewardship interventions on time to optimal antimicrobial therapy in patients with positive blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 55(5):1437–1445.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.02245-16pmc: PMC5405261pubmed: 28228491google scholar: lookup
  4. Bokma J, Kaske M, Vermijlen J, Stuyvaert S, Pardon B. Diagnostic performance of Mycoplasmopsis bovis antibody ELISA tests on bulk tank milk from dairy herds. BMC Vet Res 20(1):81.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-03927-xpmc: PMC10916218pubmed: 38443962google scholar: lookup
  5. Bokma J, Stuyvaert S, Pardon B. Comparison and optimisation of screening cutoff values for Mycoplasma bovis antibody ELISAs using serum from youngstock. Vet Rec 191(9):e2179.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.2179pubmed: 36065576google scholar: lookup
  6. Bokma J, Van Driessche L, Deprez P, Haesebrouck F, Vahl M, Weesendorp E, Deurenberg RH, Pardon B, Boyen F. Rapid identification of Mycoplasma bovis strains from bovine bronchoalveolar lavage fluid with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry after enrichment procedure. J Clin Microbiol 58(6).
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.00004-20pmc: PMC7269393pubmed: 32229599google scholar: lookup
  7. Bokma J, Vereecke N, Pas ML, Chantillon L, Vahl M, Weesendorp E, Deurenberg RH, Nauwynck H, Haesebrouck F, Theuns S. Evaluation of nanopore sequencing as a diagnostic tool for the rapid identification of Mycoplasma bovis from individual and pooled respiratory tract samples. J Clin Microbiol 59(12):e0111021.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.01110-21pmc: PMC8601226pubmed: 34550807google scholar: lookup
  8. Branscum AJ, Gardner IA, Johnson WO. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Prev Vet Med 68(2–4):145–163.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.12.005pubmed: 15820113google scholar: lookup
  9. Buchan BW, Riebe KM, Ledeboer NA. Comparison of the MALDI biotyper system using sepsityper specimen processing to routine microbiological methods for identification of bacteria from positive blood culture bottles. J Clin Microbiol 50(2):346–352.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.05021-11pmc: PMC3264150pubmed: 22162549google scholar: lookup
  10. Bujang MA, Adnan TH. Requirements for minimum sample size for sensitivity and specificity analysis. J Clin Diagn Res 10(10):YE01–YE06.
    doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18129.8744pmc: PMC5121784pubmed: 27891446google scholar: lookup
  11. Cameron M, Perry J, Middleton JR, Chaffer M, Lewis J, Keefe GP. Short communication: evaluation of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and a custom reference spectra expanded database for the identification of bovine-associated coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Dairy Sci 101(1):590–595.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13226pubmed: 29102131google scholar: lookup
  12. Chen JHK, Ho PL, Kwan GSW, She KKK, Siu GKH, Cheng VCC, Yuen KY, Yam WC. Direct bacterial identification in positive blood cultures by use of two commercial matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry systems. J Clin Microbiol 51(6):1733–1739.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.03259-12pmc: PMC3716069pubmed: 23515548google scholar: lookup
  13. Cherkaoui A, Hibbs J, Emonet S, Tangomo M, Girard M, Francois P, Schrenzel J. Comparison of two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry methods with conventional phenotypic identification for routine identification of bacteria to the species level. J Clin Microbiol 48(4):1169–1175.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.01881-09pmc: PMC2849558pubmed: 20164271google scholar: lookup
  14. Collins J, Huynh M. Estimation of diagnostic test accuracy without full verification: a review of latent class methods. Stat Med 33(24):4141–4169.
    doi: 10.1002/sim.6218pmc: PMC4199084pubmed: 24910172google scholar: lookup
  15. DeClue AE. Sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Ettinger’s textbook of veterinary internal medicine Vol. 1. [place unknown]: Saunders Elsevier; p. 2044–2059.
  16. Di Gaudio F, Indelicato S, Indelicato S, Tricoli MR, Stampone G, Bongiorno D. Improvement of a rapid direct blood culture microbial identification protocol using MALDI-TOF MS and performance comparison with SepsiTyper kit. J Microbiol Methods 155:1–7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.10.015pubmed: 30442592google scholar: lookup
  17. Doern GV, Carroll KC, Diekema DJ, Garey KW, Rupp ME, Weinstein MP, Sexton DJ. A comprehensive update on the problem of blood culture contamination and a discussion of methods for addressing the problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 33(1).
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.00009-19pmc: PMC6822992pubmed: 31666280google scholar: lookup
  18. Enùe C, Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. Prev Vet Med 1–2(45):61–81.
    pubmed: 10802334
  19. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, Machado FR, Mcintyre L, Ostermann M, Prescott HC. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med 47(11):1181–1247.
    doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-ypmc: PMC8486643pubmed: 34599691google scholar: lookup
  20. Frédéric S, Antoine M, Bodson A, Lissoir B. Bacterial rapid identification with matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time-offlight mass spectrometry: development of an “in-house method” and comparison with Bruker Sepsityper kit. Acta Clin Belg 70(5):325–330.
    doi: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000026pubmed: 25946409google scholar: lookup
  21. Furr M, McKenzie H. Factors associated with the risk of positive blood culture in neonatal foals presented to a referral center (2000-2014). J Vet Intern Med 34(6):2738–2750.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15923pmc: PMC7694804pubmed: 33044020google scholar: lookup
  22. Greiner M, Wolf G, Hartmann K. A retrospective study of the clinical presentation of 140 dogs and 39 cats with bacteraemia. J Small Anim Pract 49(8):378–383.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2008.00546.xpubmed: 18422500google scholar: lookup
  23. Grondman I, Pirvu A, Riza A, Ioana M, Netea MG. Biomarkers of inflammation and the etiology of sepsis. Biochem Soc Trans 48(1):1–14.
    doi: 10.1042/BST20190029pubmed: 32049312google scholar: lookup
  24. Hall KK, Lyman JA. Updated review of blood culture contamination. Clin Microbiol Rev 19(4):788–802.
    doi: 10.1128/CMR.00062-05pmc: PMC1592696pubmed: 17041144google scholar: lookup
  25. Hengy MH, Garcia JD, Diaz-Campos D, Pempek JA, Hinds CA, Habing GG. The potential use of MALDI SepsityperTM technology for rapid diagnosis of septicemia in dairy calves. .
  26. Juiz PM, Almela M, Melción C, Campo I, Esteban C, Pitart C, Marco F, Vila J. A comparative study of two different methods of sample preparation for positive blood cultures for the rapid identification of bacteria using MALDI-TOF MS. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 31(7):1353–1358.
    doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1449-xpubmed: 22037773google scholar: lookup
  27. Kostoulas P, Nielsen SS, Branscum AJ, Johnson WO, Dendukuri N, Dhand NK, Toft N, Gardner IA. STARD-BLCM: standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies that use Bayesian latent class models. Prev Vet Med 138:37–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.01.006pubmed: 28237234google scholar: lookup
  28. Lin HH, Tseng KH, Tien N, Lin YT, Yu J, Hsueh PR, Cho DY. Evaluation of the Rapid Sepsityper protocol and specific MBT-Sepsityper module for the identification of bacteremia and fungemia using Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 55(6 Pt 2):1330–1333.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2022.07.005pubmed: 35981943google scholar: lookup
  29. MacBrayne CE, Williams MC, Prinzi A, Pearce K, Lamb D, Parker SK. Time to blood culture positivity by pathogen and primary service. Hosp Pediatr 11(9):953–961.
    doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005873pubmed: 34407980google scholar: lookup
  30. Martinez RM, Bauerle ER, Fang FC, Butler-Wu SM. Evaluation of three rapid diagnostic methods for direct identification of microorganisms in positive blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 52(7):2521–2529.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.00529-14pmc: PMC4097746pubmed: 24808235google scholar: lookup
  31. Morgenthaler NG, Kostrzewa M.. 2015. Rapid identification of pathogens in positive blood culture of patients with sepsis: review and meta-analysis of the performance of the Sepsityper Kit. Int J Microbiol. 2015:827416–827410. doi: 10.1155/2015/827416.
    doi: 10.1155/2015/827416pmc: PMC4426779pubmed: 26000017google scholar: lookup
  32. Ostermann M, Sprigings D.. 2017. The critically ill patient. In: Sprigings D, Chambers JB, editors. Acute medicine: a practical guide to the management of medical emergencies. 5th ed. New Jersey, U.S.: Wiley & Sons; p. 1–8.
  33. Pas ML, Bokma J, Lowie T, Boyen F, Pardon B.. 2023. Sepsis and survival in critically ill calves: risk factors and antimicrobial use. J Vet Intern Med. 37(1):374–389. doi: 10.1111/jvim.16607.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.16607pmc: PMC9889718pubmed: 36562487google scholar: lookup
  34. Pas ML, Boyen F, Castelain D, Chantillon L, Paepe D, Pille F, Pardon B, Bokma J.. 2024. Bayesian evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of blood culture media and hypoglycemia in sepsis-suspected calves. J Vet Intern Med. 38(3):1906–1916. doi: 10.1111/jvim.17040.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.17040pmc: PMC11099746pubmed: 38526076google scholar: lookup
  35. Pizauro LJL, de Almeida CC, Soltes GA, Slavic D, Rossi-Junior OD, de Ávila FA, Zafalon LF, MacInnes JI.. n2017. Species level identification of coagulase negative . from buffalo using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry and cydB real-time quantitative PCR. Vet Microbiol. 204:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.03.036.n
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.03.036pubmed: 28532810google scholar: lookup
  36. Ponderand L, Pavese P, Maubon D, Giraudon E, Girard T, Landelle C, Maurin M, Caspar Y.. n2020. Evaluation of Rapid Sepsityper protocol and specific MBT-Sepsityper module (Bruker Daltonics) for the rapid diagnosis of bacteremia and fungemia by MALDI-TOF-MS. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12941-020-00403-w.
    doi: 10.1186/s12941-020-00403-wpmc: PMC7727196pubmed: 33298064google scholar: lookup
  37. Psaroulaki A, Chochlakis D.. 2018. Use of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in the battle against bacterial infectious diseases: recent achievements and future perspectives. Expert Rev Proteomics. 15(7):537–539. doi: 10.1080/14789450.2018.1499469.
    doi: 10.1080/14789450.2018.1499469pubmed: 29999433google scholar: lookup
  38. Randall LP, Lemma F, Koylass M, Rogers J, Ayling RD, Worth D, Klita M, Steventon A, Line K, Wragg P, et al. 2015. Evaluation of MALDI-ToF as a method for the identification of bacteria in the veterinary diagnostic laboratory. Res Vet Sci. 101:42–49. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.05.018.
    doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.05.018pubmed: 26267088google scholar: lookup
  39. Rijckaert J, Raes E, Buczinski S, Dumoulin M, Deprez P, Van Ham L, van Loon G, Pardon B.. 2020. Accuracy of transcranial magnetic stimulation and a Bayesian latent class model for diagnosis of spinal cord dysfunction in horses. J Vet Intern Med. 34(2):964–971. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15699.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15699pmc: PMC7096606pubmed: 32030834google scholar: lookup
  40. Russell CM, Axon JE, Blishen A, Begg AP.. 2008. Blood culture isolates and antimicrobial sensitivities from 427 critically ill neonatal foals. Aust Vet J. 86(7):266–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2008.00311.x.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2008.00311.xpubmed: 18616477google scholar: lookup
  41. Rybicka M, Miłosz E, Bielawski KP.. 2021. Superiority of maldi-tof mass spectrometry over real-time pcr for sars-cov-2 rna detection. Viruses. 13(5):730. doi: 10.3390/v13050730.
    doi: 10.3390/v13050730pmc: PMC8145549pubmed: 33922195google scholar: lookup
  42. Saarenkari HK, Sharp CR, Smart L.. 2022. Retrospective evaluation of the utility of blood cultures in dogs (2009–2018): 45 cases. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 32(1):141–145. doi: 10.1111/vec.13144.
    doi: 10.1111/vec.13144pubmed: 34606667google scholar: lookup
  43. Saffert RT, Cunningham SA, Mandrekar J, Patel R.. 2012. Comparison of three preparatory methods for detection of bacteremia by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 73(1):21–26. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.01.010.
    doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.01.010pubmed: 22578935google scholar: lookup
  44. Sandrin TR, Demirev PA.. 2018. Characterization of microbial mixtures by mass spectrometry. Mass Spectrom Rev. 37(3):321–349. doi: 10.1002/mas.21534.
    doi: 10.1002/mas.21534pubmed: 28509357google scholar: lookup
  45. Saulez MN, Gummow B, Slovis M, Byars TD, Frazer M, Macgillivray K, Bain FT.. 2007. Admission clinicopathological data, length of stay, cost and mortality in an equine neonatal intensive care unit. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 78(3):153–157. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v78i3.308.
    doi: 10.4102/jsava.v78i3.308pubmed: 18237039google scholar: lookup
  46. Schulthess B, Brodner K, Bloemberg GV, Zbinden R, Böttger EC, Hombach M.. 2013. Identification of Gram-positive cocci by use of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry: comparison of different preparation methods and implementation of a practical algorithm for routine diagnostics. J Clin Microbiol. 51(6):1834–1840. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02654-12.
    doi: 10.1128/JCM.02654-12pmc: PMC3716085pubmed: 23554198google scholar: lookup
  47. Scohy A, Noël A, Boeras A, Brassinne L, Laurent T, Rodriguez-Villalobos H, Verroken A.. n2018. Evaluation of the Bruker MBT Sepsityper IVD module for the identification of polymicrobial blood cultures with MALDI-TOF MS. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 37(11):2145–2152. doi: 10.1007/s10096-018-3351-2.n
    doi: 10.1007/s10096-018-3351-2pubmed: 30128666google scholar: lookup
  48. Singhal N, Kumar M, Kanaujia PK, Virdi JS.. 2015. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: an emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis. Front Microbiol. 6(AUG):791. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00791.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00791pmc: PMC4525378pubmed: 26300860google scholar: lookup
  49. Smith RD, Johnson JK, Ernst RK.. 2023. Comparison of 3 diagnostic platforms for identification of bacteria and yeast from positive blood culture bottles. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 107(2):116018. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2023.116018.
    doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2023.116018pubmed: 37478505google scholar: lookup
  50. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A.. 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Statist Soc B. 64(4):583–639. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00353.
    doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00353google scholar: lookup
  51. Tadros M, Petrich A.. n2013. Evaluation of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and Sepsityper Kit for the direct identification of organisms from sterile body fluids in a Canadian pediatric hospital. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 24(4):191–194. doi: 10.1155/2013/701093.n
    doi: 10.1155/2013/701093pmc: PMC3905001pubmed: 24489560google scholar: lookup
  52. Tai-Fen L, Tsai-Wen W, Wei-Yu H, Xiang-Jun C, Hao-Chieh C, Yu-Tsung H.. n2025. Comparison of a Sepsityper kit and in-house membrane filtration methods for rapidly diagnosing positive blood cultures via MALDI–TOF MS. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 58(2):265–271. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2024.11.007.n
    doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2024.11.007pubmed: 39632131google scholar: lookup
  53. Tanner H, Evans JT, Gossain S, Hussain A.. 2017. Evaluation of three sample preparation methods for the direct identification of bacteria in positive blood cultures by MALDI-TOF. BMC Res Notes. 10(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2366-y.
    doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2366-ypmc: PMC5241956pubmed: 28100271google scholar: lookup
  54. Timsit JF, Ruppé E, Barbier F, Tabah A, Bassetti M.. 2020. Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement. Intensive Care Med. 46(2):266–284. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05950-6.
    doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05950-6pmc: PMC7223992pubmed: 32047941google scholar: lookup
  55. Tsuchida S, Umemura H, Nakayama T.. 2020. Current status of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization⇓time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) in clinical diagnostic microbiology. Molecules. 25(20):4775. doi: 10.3390/molecules25204775.
    doi: 10.3390/molecules25204775pmc: PMC7587594pubmed: 33080897google scholar: lookup
  56. Ulrich S, Gottschalk C, Straubinger RK, Schwaiger K, Dörfelt R.. 2020. Acceleration of the identification of sepsis-inducing bacteria in cultures of dog and cat blood. J Small Anim Pract. 61(1):42–45. doi: 10.1111/jsap.13056.
    doi: 10.1111/jsap.13056pubmed: 31313312google scholar: lookup
  57. Van Driessche L, Bokma J, Deprez P, Haesebrouck F, Boyen F, Pardon B.. 2019. Rapid identification of respiratory bacterial pathogens from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in cattle by MALDI-TOF MS. Sci Rep. 9(1):18381. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54599-9.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54599-9pmc: PMC6895124pubmed: 31804604google scholar: lookup
  58. Watanabe N, Koyama S, Taji Y, Mitsutake K, Ebihara Y.. 2022. Direct microorganism species identification and antimicrobial susceptibility tests from positive blood culture bottles using rapid Sepsityper Kit. J Infect Chemother. 28(4):563–568. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.12.030.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.12.030pubmed: 35027301google scholar: lookup
  59. WinEpi . 2022. Working in epidemiology – estimation of predictive values. http://www.winepi.net/uk/index.htm.
  60. Zabbe JB, Zanardo L, Mégraud F, Bessède E.. 2015. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for early identification of bacteria grown in blood culture bottles. J Microbiol Methods. 115:45–46. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.04.009.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.04.009pubmed: 25940929google scholar: lookup
  61. Zhou M, Yang Q, Kudinha T, Sun L, Zhang R, Liu C, Yu S, Xiao M, Kong F, Zhao Y, et al. 2017. An improved in-house MALDI-TOF MS protocol for direct cost-effective identification of pathogens from blood cultures. Front Microbiol. 8(SEP):1824. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01824.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01824pmc: PMC5625089pubmed: 29033904google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,324 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.