{rfName}
Ev

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

248

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Escriba, JmAuthor

Share

November 15, 2018
Publications
>
Article
No

Evaluation of the BACTEC MGIT 960 and the MB/BacT systems for recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens and for species identification by DNA AccuProbe

Publicated to:Journal Of Clinical Microbiology. 38 (1): 398-401 - 2000-01-24 38(1), DOI: 10.1128/JCM.38.1.398-401.2000

Authors: Alcaide, F; Benitez, MA; Escriba, JM; Martin, R;

Affiliations

Ciudad Sanitaria & Univ de Bellvitge, Microbiol Serv, Hosp Princeps dEspanya, Barcelona 08907, Spain - Author
Inst Catala Salut, Cap de Drassanes, Barcelona, Spain - Author

Abstract

A total of 120 mycobacterial isolates were recovered from 1,068 clinical specimens. Of these, 82.5% were in MGIT 960, 83.3% were in MB/BacT, 80% were in BACTEC 460, and 70% were on Lowenstein-Jensen medium. Mean times to detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (n = 96) were significantly shorter with MGIT 960 (12.6 days, P = 0.003) and BACTEC 460 (11.8 days, P < 0.001) than with MB/BacT (15.9 days). Although, MGIT 960 showed the lowest rate of recovery of M. kansasii genotype I (64.3%), the earliest growth was detected with this system (8.9 days). Low and similar rates of contamination were obtained with MGIT 960 (3.3%) and MB/BacT (3%). The AccuProbe test for identification showed excellent sensitivities with MGIT 960 (96.8%) and MB/BacT (100%) cultures. In addition to being nonradiometric, both MGIT 960 and MB/BacT are ac curate, rapid, and labor-saving detection systems which could replace the radiometric method.

Keywords

Bacterial typing techniquesCord formationCulture mediaCulture systemsDna probesGrowth indicator tubeHumansKansasiiLowenstein-jensen mediumMbMycobacteriumMycobacterium infectionsPresumptive identificationReagent kits, diagnosticSolid-cultureTuberculosis complex

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Journal Of Clinical Microbiology due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2000, it was in position 11/83, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Microbiology.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) of the Dimensions source, it yields a value of: 14.26, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-16, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 84
  • Scopus: 100
  • Europe PMC: 56

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-16:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 35.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 38 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 3.