Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11283066›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Fluconazole and voriconazole multidisk testing of Candida species for disk test calibration and MIC estimation.

G Kronvall, I Karlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors.

G KronvallDepartment of Microbiology and Tumor Biology--MTC, Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm SE-17176, Sweden. goran.kronvall@ks.se
I Karlsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluconazole and voriconazole MICs were determined for 114 clinical Candida isolates, including isolates of Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, Candida lusitaniae, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida tropicalis. All strains were susceptible to voriconazole, and most strains were also susceptible to fluconazole, with the exception of C. glabrata and C. krusei, the latter being fully fluconazole resistant. Single-strain regression analysis (SRA) was applied to 54 strains, including American Type Culture Collection reference strains. The regression lines obtained were markedly different for the different Candida species. Using an MIC limit of susceptibility to fluconazole of < or =8 microg/ml, according to NCCLS standards, the zone breakpoint for susceptibility for the 25-microg fluconazole disk was calculated to be > or =18 mm for C. albicans and > or =22 mm for C. glabrata and C. krusei. SRA results for voriconazole were used to estimate an optimal disk content according to rational criteria. A 5-microg disk content of voriconazole gave measurable zones for a tentative resistance limit of 4 microg/ml, whereas a 2.5-microg disk gave zones at the same MIC level for only three of the species. A novel SRA modification, multidisk testing, was also applied to the two major species, C. albicans and C. glabrata, and the MIC estimates were compared with the true MICs for the isolates. There was a significant correlation between the two measurements. Our results show that disk diffusion methods might be useful for azole testing of Candida isolates. The method can be calibrated using SRA. Multidisk testing gives direct estimations of the MICs for the isolates.

Indexed as

Microbial Sensitivity TestsAntifungal AgentsCalibrationCandidaCandidiasisFluconazoleHumansPyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazoleAntifungal AgentsFluconazolePyrimidinesTriazolesVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID11283066
PMCPMC87949

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.