Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17202279›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2007

Comparative evaluation of Etest and sensititre yeastone panels against the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method for testing Candida susceptibility to seven antifungal agents.

Barbara D Alexander, Terry C Byrne, Kelly L Smith, Kimberly E Hanson, Kevin J Anstrom, John R Perfect, L Barth Reller

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Brazilian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults and children.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
    Guideline
  2. Rapid antifungal susceptibility testing from positive blood cultures using direct gradient diffusion: a prospective study.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. [Rapid detection of fluconazole resistance inNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. First Case of Candidemia With Fluconazole-ResistantCase reports in infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Overcoming Drug Resistance in a ClinicalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  13. Clinical utility of antifungal susceptibility testing.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Change in species distribution and antifungal susceptibility of candidemias in an intensive care unit of a university hospital (10-year experience).European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
  18. Can We Improve Antifungal Susceptibility Testing?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  19. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Current Approaches.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020
    Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Barbara D AlexanderDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. alexa011@mc.duke.edu
Terry C Byrne
Kelly L Smith
Kimberly E Hanson
Kevin J Anstrom
John R Perfect
L Barth Reller

Funding

Prevention/diagnosis/fungal infections/transplantationK23AI052222 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ALEXANDER, BARBARA D · 2002 to 2005
$502k
NIAID NIH HHS K23 AI052222NIAID NIH HHS K23-AI52222-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess their utility for antifungal susceptibility testing in our clinical laboratory, the Etest and Sensititre methods were compared with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M27-A2 reference broth microdilution method. Fluconazole (FL), itraconazole (I), voriconazole (V), posaconazole (P), flucytosine (FC), caspofungin (C), and amphotericin B (A) were tested with 212 Candida isolates. Reference MICs were determined after 48 h of incubation, and Etest and Sensititre MICs were determined after 24 h and 48 h of incubation. Overall, excellent essential agreement (EA) between the reference and test methods was observed for Etest (95%) and Sensititre (91%). Etest showed an >or=92% EA for MICs for all drugs tested; Sensititre showed a >or=92% EA for MICs for I, FC, A, and C but 82% for FL and 85% for V. The overall categorical agreement (CA) was 90% for Etest and 88% for Sensititre; minor errors accounted for the majority of all categorical errors for both systems. Categorical agreement was lowest for Candida glabrata and Candida tropicalis with both test systems. Etest and Sensititre provided better CA at 24 h compared to 48 h for C. glabrata; however, CA for C. glabrata was <80% for FL with both test systems despite MIC determination at 24 h. Agreement between technologists for both methods was >or=98% for each agent against all organisms tested. Overall, Etest and Sensititre methods compared favorably with the CLSI reference method for determining the susceptibility of Candida. However, further evaluation of their performance for determining the MICs of azoles, particularly for C. glabrata, is warranted.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAntifungal AgentsAzolesCandidaCandidiasisColorimetryFungemiaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReference StandardsAntifungal AgentsAzolesReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID17202279
PMCPMC1829106

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.