ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
Comparison of three commercial assays and a modified disk diffusion assay with two broth microdilution reference assays for testing zygomycetes, Aspergillus spp., Candida spp., and Cryptococcus neoformans with posaconazole and amphotericin B.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of Sensititre YeastOne and CLSI M38-Ed3 reference method for determining echinocandin minimum effective concentrations againstMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Antifungal Resistance in Cryptococcal Infections.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Invasive aspergillosis in adult patients in Australia and New Zealand: 2017-2020.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Commercial Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts: Strengths and Limitations as Predictors of Resistance.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: A Primer for Clinicians.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Review
- Comparison of Disc Diffusion, Etest, and a Modified CLSI Broth Microdilution Method forAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Antifungal Susceptibly Testing by Concentration Gradient Strip Etest Method for Fungal Isolates: A Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Evaluation of the Gradient Concentration Strip Method for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Isavuconazole and Comparators forAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- (New) Methods for Detection ofCurrent fungal infection reports · 2019Article
- In vitro evaluation of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus susceptibility to Saudi honeys.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Sensititre YeastOne and CLSI M38-A2 Microdilution Methods in Determining the Activity of Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Aspergillus Species.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Responding to the emergence of antifungal drug resistance: perspectives from the bench and the bedside.Future microbiology · 2018Review
- Species Identification andAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
- Posaconazole MIC Distributions for Aspergillus fumigatus Species Complex by Four Methods: Impact ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
- Molecular Tools for the Detection and Deduction of Azole Antifungal Drug Resistance Phenotypes in Aspergillus Species.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2017Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Sensititre YeastOne and CLSI M38-A2 Reference Method for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Aspergillus spp. against Echinocandins.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Emergence of TR46/Y121F/T289A in an Aspergillus fumigatus isolate from a Chinese patient.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
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
We compared posaconazole M27-A2 and M38-A MICs to Etest and YeastOne MICs for 92 zygomycetes, 126 Aspergillus isolates, 110 Candida isolates, and Cryptococcus neoformans. Reference MICs were also correlated with inhibition zone diameters in millimeters (modified M44-A disk and Neo-Sensitabs tablet methods). Etest MICs were obtained on solidified (1.5% agar) RPMI 1640 (2% dextrose), and zone diameters were obtained on supplemented (2% glucose and 0.5 microg/ml methylene blue [for all isolates]) and nonsupplemented Mueller-Hinton (MH; molds only) agar. MICs and zone diameters were obtained between 16 and 72 h. The overall agreement (% MIC pairs within a three-dilution range) between reference posaconazole and YeastOne MICs was 98 to 100% at 16 to 24 h for zygomycetes and yeasts and 99% at 24 to 48 h for Aspergillus. The overall agreement was lower between reference posaconazole and Etest MICs (94 to 97%) and by both methods with amphotericin B for all species (95 to 99.3%). For yeasts, the correlation coefficient was similar between reference posaconazole MICs and either disk (R, 0.810) or tablet (R, 0.769) zone diameter at 24 h and was superior on MH agar for molds at 16 to 48 h (R, 0.804 and 0.799 for disk and tablet, respectively). For amphotericin B, the best correlation between reference MICs and zone diameters was observed at 16 to 48 h for molds on MH agar (R, 0.736 to 0.812 and 0.765 to 0.749 for disk and tablet, respectively) and at 48 h for yeasts (R, 0.681 and 0.503 for disk and tablet, respectively). These data suggest the potential value of these alternative broth dilution and agar diffusion methods for testing posaconazole and amphotericin B in the clinical laboratory against the species evaluated.
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.