ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2006
Audit of laboratory mycology services for the management of patients with fungal infections in the northwest of England.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundFungal infection is increasingly recognised as an important cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in immunocompromised patients. Little information exists on laboratory services available and the methods used by general microbiology laboratories to diagnose these important infections.
aimTo investigate the services microbiology laboratories in northwest England provide towards the diagnosis and management of superficial and deep fungal infections.
methodsA questionnaire was sent to laboratories to get a holistic view of the support given to clinicians looking after patients with fungal infections. The aim was not to investigate details of each laboratory's standard operating procedures. The completed questionnaires, which formed the basis of this report, were returned by all 21 laboratories which were recruited. This study was conducted between March 2004 and September 2004.
resultsServices were provided to District General Hospitals and to six tertiary centres, including eight teaching hospitals by 16 laboratories. Their bed capacity was 250-1300 beds. Total specimens (including bacterial and viral) processed annually were 42 000-500,000 whereas fungal ones were 560-5400.
conclusionIn most microbiology laboratories of northwest England, clinicians were aware of the potential of fungal pathogens to cause infections especially in immunocompromised patients. Additional measures such as prolonged incubation of samples were introduced to improve fungal yield from patients at high risk. It is necessary to train and educate laboratory and medical staff about the role of serology and molecular methods in diagnosis and management of patients with fungal infection.
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.