Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18832129›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008

Comparison between the standardized clinical and laboratory standards institute M38-A2 method and a 2,3-Bis(2-Methoxy-4-Nitro-5-[(Sulphenylamino)Carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide- based method for testing antifungal susceptibility of dermatophytes.

Atef S Shehata, Pranab K Mukherjee, Mahmoud A Ghannoum

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Antifungal drug susceptibility profile of clinically important dermatophytes and determination of point mutations in terbinafine-resistant isolates.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Atef S ShehataCenter for Medical Mycology, Department of Dermatology, Case Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Pranab K Mukherjee
Mahmoud A Ghannoum

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we determined the utility of a 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-[(sulfenylamino)carbonyl]-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide (XTT)-based assay for determining antifungal susceptibilities of dermatophytes to terbinafine, ciclopirox, and voriconazole in comparison to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38-A2 method. Forty-eight dermatophyte isolates, including Trichophyton rubrum (n = 15), Trichophyton mentagrophytes (n = 7), Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 11), and Epidermophyton floccosum (n = 13), and two quality control strains, were tested. In the XTT-based method, MICs were determined spectrophotometrically at 490 nm after addition of XTT and menadione. For the CLSI method, the MICs were determined visually. With T. rubrum, the XTT assay revealed MIC ranges of 0.004 to >64 mug/ml, 0.125 to 0.25 mug/ml, and 0.008 to 0.025 mug/ml for terbinafine, ciclopirox, and voriconazole, respectively. Similar MIC ranges were obtained against T. rubrum by using the CLSI method. Additionally, when tested with T. mentagrophytes, T. tonsurans, and E. floccosum isolates, the XTT and CLSI methods resulted in comparable MIC ranges. Both methods revealed similar lowest drug concentrations that inhibited 90% of the isolates for the majority of tested drug-dermatophyte combinations. The levels of agreement within 1 dilution between both methods were as follows: 100% with terbinafine, 97.8% with ciclopirox, and 89.1% with voriconazole. However, the agreement within 2 dilutions between these two methods was 100% for all tested drugs. Our results revealed that the XTT assay can be a useful tool for antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes.

Indexed as

Microbial ViabilityAntifungal AgentsArthrodermataceaeCiclopiroxHumansIndicators and ReagentsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMycologyNaphthalenesPyridonesPyrimidinesSensitivity and SpecificitySpectrophotometryTerbinafineTetrazolium SaltsTriazoles2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-5-((phenylamino)carbonyl)-2H-tetrazolium hydroxideAntifungal AgentsCiclopiroxIndicators and ReagentsNaphthalenesPyridonesPyrimidinesTerbinafineTetrazolium SaltsTriazolesVitamin K 3Voriconazole

Identifiers

PMID18832129
PMCPMC2576611

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.