ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Comparative performance of the RapID Yeast Plus System and the API 20C AUX Clinical Yeast System.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Etiological agents of fungal endophthalmitis: diagnosis and management.International ophthalmology · 2014Review
- Isolation of Cryptococcus neoformans and other opportunistic fungi from pigeon droppings.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2013Article
- Evaluation of the commercial rapid trehalose test (GLABRATA RTT) for the point of isolation identification of Candida glabrata isolates in primary cultures.Mycopathologia · 2012Article
- Improved identification of yeast species directly from positive blood culture media by combining Sepsityper specimen processing and Microflex analysis with the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization Biotyper system.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Invasive Japanese beetles facilitate aggregation and injury by a native scarab pest of ripening fruits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2009Article
- Evaluation of VITEK 2 and RapID yeast plus systems for yeast species identification: experience at a large clinical microbiology laboratory.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of the RapID Yeast Plus System (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Norcross, Ga.), a 4-h micropanel using single-substrate enzymatic test reactions, was compared with that of the API 20C AUX Clinical Yeast System (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.), a 48- to 72-h carbohydrate assimilation panel. Two hundred twenty-five yeasts, yeast-like fungi, and algae, comprising 28 species and including 30 isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans, an important pathogen not tested in appreciable numbers in other comparisons, were tested by both methods. On initial testing, 196 (87.1%) and 215 (95.6%) isolates were correctly identified by the RapID and API systems, respectively. Upon repeat testing, the number of correctly identified isolates increased to 220 (97.8%) for the RapID system and 223 (99.1%) for the API system. Reducing the turbidity of the test inoculum to that of a no. 3 McFarland turbidity standard, which is below that recommended by the manufacturer, resulted in the correct identification of most of the isolates initially misidentified by the RapID system, including 10 of 30 C. neoformans isolates. Concordance between the RapID and API results after repeat testing was 97.3%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.