Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10834985›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2000

Comparative evaluation of PASCO and national committee for clinical laboratory standards M27-A broth microdilution methods for antifungal drug susceptibility testing of yeasts.

B A Arthington-Skaggs, M Motley, D W Warnock, C J Morrison

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Potential Treatment of DermatophyteMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. David and Goliath: chemical perturbation of eukaryotes by bacteria.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2016
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Challenges in the Polyene- and Azole-Based Pharmacotherapy of Ocular Fungal Infections.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

B A Arthington-SkaggsMycotic Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
M Motley
D W Warnock
C J Morrison

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The PASCO antifungal susceptibility test system, developed in collaboration with a commercial company, is a broth microdilution assay which is faster and easier to use than the reference broth microdilution test performed according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) document M27-A guidelines. Advantages of the PASCO system include the system's inclusion of quality-controlled, premade antifungal panels containing 10, twofold serial dilutions of drugs and a one-step inoculation system whereby all wells are simultaneously inoculated in a single step. For the prototype panel, we chose eight antifungal agents for in vitro testing (amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, and terconazole) and compared the results with those of the NCCLS method for testing 74 yeast isolates (14 Candida albicans, 10 Candida glabrata, 10 Candida tropicalis, 10 Candida krusei, 10 Candida dubliniensis, 10 Candida parapsilosis, and 10 Cryptococcus neoformans isolates). The overall agreements between the methods were 91% for fluconazole, 89% for amphotericin B and ketoconazole, 85% for itraconazole, 80% for flucytosine, 77% for terconazole, 66% for miconazole, and 53% for clotrimazole. In contrast to the M27-A reference method, the PASCO method classified as resistant seven itraconazole-susceptible isolates (9%), two fluconazole-susceptible isolates (3%), and three flucytosine-susceptible isolates (4%), representing 12 major errors. In addition, it classified two fluconazole-resistant isolates (3%) and one flucytosine-resistant isolate (1%) as susceptible, representing three very major errors. Overall, the agreement between the methods was greater than or equal to 80% for four of the seven species tested (C. dubliniensis, C. glabrata, C. krusei, and C. neoformans). The lowest agreement between methods was observed for miconazole and clotrimazole and for C. krusei isolates tested against terconazole. When the data for miconazole and clotrimazole were removed from the analysis, agreement was >/=80% for all seven species tested. Therefore, the PASCO method is a suitable alternative procedure for the testing of the antifungal susceptibilities of the medically important Candida spp. and C. neoformans against a range of antifungal agents with the exceptions only of miconazole and clotrimazole and of terconazole against C. krusei isolates.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsCandidaCryptococcus neoformansCulture MediaEvaluation Studies as TopicMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReagent Kits, DiagnosticReproducibility of ResultsAntifungal AgentsCulture MediaReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID10834985
PMCPMC86775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.