Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19710267›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009

In vitro susceptibility of clinical isolates of Aspergillus spp. to anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin: a head-to-head comparison using the CLSI M38-A2 broth microdilution method.

M A Pfaller, L Boyken, R J Hollis, J Kroeger, S A Messer, S Tendolkar, D J Diekema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Molecular Identification ofInfection and drug resistance · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Infection and drug resistance · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Drug Sensitivity and Resistance Mechanism in Aspergillus SectionAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017
    Article
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.

M A PfallerMedical Microbiology Division, Department of Pathology, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. michael-pfaller@uiowa.edu
L Boyken
R J Hollis
J Kroeger
S A Messer
S Tendolkar
D J Diekema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We determined the in vitro activities of anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin against 526 isolates of Aspergillus spp. (64 A. flavus, 391 A. fumigatus, 46 A. niger, and 25 A. terreus isolates) collected from over 60 centers worldwide from 2001 through 2007. Susceptibility testing was performed according to the CLSI M38-A2 method. All three echinocandins--anidulafungin (50% minimum effective concentration [MEC50], 0.007 microg/ml; MEC90, 0.015 microg/ml), caspofungin (MEC50, 0.015 microg/ml; MEC90, 0.03 microg/ml), and micafungin (MEC50, 0.007 microg/ml; MEC90, 0.015 microg/ml)-were very active against Aspergillus spp. More than 99% of all isolates were inhibited by < or = 0.06 microg/ml of all three agents.

Indexed as

AnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsAspergillosisAspergillusCaspofunginEchinocandinsHumansInhibitory Concentration 50LipopeptidesMicafunginMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnidulafunginAntifungal AgentsCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptidesMicafungin

Identifiers

PMID19710267
PMCPMC2756949

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.