ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003
Modification of rapid susceptibility assay for antifungal susceptibility testing of Aspergillus fumigatus.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure-activity relationships among antifungal nylon-3 polymers: identification of materials active against drug-resistant strains of Candida albicans.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2014Article
- Identification of limiting factors for the optimum growth of fusarium oxysporum in liquid medium.Toxicology international · 2011Article
- Determination of Echinocandin MICs for Candida species in less than 8 hours: comparison of the rapid susceptibility assay with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's broth microdilution assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Effect of caspofungin on metabolite profiles of Aspergillus species determined by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve objectivity and speed of current antifungal mold susceptibility testing, the yeast Rapid Susceptibility Assay (RSA) was adapted for Aspergillus species. The RSA is based on glucose utilization in the presence of an antifungal drug. Aspergillus fumigatus conidia were incubated in 0.2% glucose RPMI 1640 containing 0.03 to 16 micro g of amphotericin B or itraconazole/ml. Drug-related inhibition of glucose utilization correlated with suppression of conidial germination. Following incubation of conidia with various concentrations of antifungal drug, the percentage of residual glucose in the growth medium was determined colorimetrically and plotted against drug concentration to determine the MIC (MIC(RSA)). National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) M38-P testing was also performed to obtain NCCLS MICs (MIC(NCCLS)) for direct comparison with MIC(RSA)s. Conidial inocula of an optical density at 530 nm (OD(530)) of 0.11 facilitated determination of amphotericin B and itraconazole MIC(RSA)s at 16 h equal to or within a single twofold dilution of MIC(NCCLS)s obtained at 48 h. Preliminary testing with a 0.11-OD(530) conidial inoculum of the slower-growing Aspergillus terreus resulted in itraconazole and amphotericin B MIC(RSA)s at 16 h equal to or within a single twofold dilution of MIC(NCCLS)s obtained at 48 h. These data indicate that the mold RSA provides a more objective and rapid method for Aspergillus spp. susceptibility testing than the NCCLS M38-P assay.
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.