ReviewMycopathologia1992
Laboratory aids in the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis.
Review in Mycopathologia, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for the investigation of invasive fungal infections in haematological malignancy and solid organ transplantation. British Society for Medical Mycology.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 1997Guideline
- Diagnostic Approaches to Invasive Candidiasis: Challenges and New Perspectives.Mycopathologia · 2025Review
- Exploration of the anticandidal mechanism of Cassia spectabilis in debilitating candidiasis.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2016Article
- Application of Culture-Independent Rapid Diagnostic Tests in the Management of Invasive Candidiasis and Cryptococcosis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Review
- Insights into Candida tropicalis nosocomial infections and virulence factors.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012Review
- Rapid identification of Candida dubliniensis by indirect immunofluorescence based on differential localization of antigens on C. dubliniensis blastospores and Candida albicans germ tubes.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1998Article
- Simplified adsorption method for detection of antibodies to Candida albicans germ tubes.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1994Article
- Diagnosis of invasive mycoses in severely immunosuppressed patients.Annals of hematology · 1993Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The laboratory diagnosis of candidiasis continues to be problematic; however, there have been several advances in the past decade which promise to enhance our ability to identify patients at high risk for infection and/or to document invasive candidiasis in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. The introduction of commercially available biphasic blood culture medium and subsequently the lysis-centrifugation procedure has markedly improved the ability of laboratories to detect fungemia. Although serologic methods have not been very successful in diagnosing candidiasis in immunocompromised patients, several antigen detection methods are now under investigation. In addition, detection of fungal metabolites such as D-arabinitol remains promising. Finally, application of the techniques of molecular biology for typing and detection of fungal pathogens has expanded our understanding of candidal infections and may offer the most sensitive and specific means of diagnosing invasive candidiasis.
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.