ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008
Evaluation of the new Micronaut-Candida system compared to the API ID32C method for yeast identification.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Biology, Virulence, and General Aspects ofInfection and drug resistance · 2024Review
- Current Aspects in the Biology, Pathogeny, and Treatment ofInfection and drug resistance · 2020Review
- In vitro activity of rezafungin against common and rare Candida species and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Killing rates for caspofungin against Candida albicans after brief and continuous caspofungin exposure in the presence and absence of serum.Mycopathologia · 2014Article
- Uncommon opportunistic fungal infections of oral cavity: A review.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP · 2014Review
- Candida palmioleophila: characterization of a previously overlooked pathogen and its unique susceptibility profile in comparison with five related species.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Candida dubliniensis: epidemiology and phenotypic methods for identification.Mycopathologia · 2010Review
- COMPARISON BETWEEN FOUR USUAL METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION OF Candida SPECIES.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao PauloArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new system, Micronaut-Candida, was compared to API ID32C to identify 264 yeast (Candida albicans, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, C. inconspicua, C. norvegensis, C. lusitaniae, C. guilliermondii, C. dubliniensis, C. pulcherrima, C. famata, C. rugosa, C. glabrata, C. kefyr, C. lipolytica, C. catenulata, C. neoformans, Geotrichum and Trichosporon species, Rhodotorula glutinis, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) clinical isolates. Results were in concordance in 244 cases. Eighteen out of the 20 of discordant results were correctly identified by Micronaut-Candida but not by API ID32C, as confirmed by PCR ribotyping.
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.