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

Article Article scientifique Article Performances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy eng 2021 author Fischer Adrien Nicolas 639649 author Azam Nouria 134765 author Rasga Lara 716644 author Barras Valérie 640732 author Tangomo Manuela 24530 author Renzi Gesuele 111073 author Vuilleumier Nicolas 61406 author Schrenzel Jacques 29184 author Cherkaoui Abdessalam 504646 2171-2176 10.1007/s10096-021-04233-2 33963927 0934-9723 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10096-021-04233-2.pdf 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. Dewey 616 56 Département de médecine 221 false 338 Génomique et microbiote 604 211 Auto-immunité, inflammation et athérosclérose 270 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 40 10 1a4c180d-fc2b-425c-84de-5b23d6038041 Article (Published version) Public s10096-021-04233-2.pdf 273762 application/pdf CC BY openAccess Faculté de médecine / Section de médecine clinique / Département de médecine

Title	Published in	Access level	OA Policy	Year	Views	Downloads

Performances of automated digital imaging of Gram-stained slides with on-screen reading against manual microscopy	European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases			2021	241	230

Archive ouverte UNIGE

Rasga, Lara