ArticleMedical mycology2010
Screening for drug-resistant Candida yeasts with chromogenic agar.
Article in Medical mycology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Current Approaches.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We examined the utility of agar dilution to screen yeasts for reduced susceptibility to several newer antifungal drugs including echinocandins and azoles. We compared agar dilution susceptibility screening with the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) method for Candida isolates. We added echinocandins and azoles to CHROMagar Candida medium prior to its solidification. Assessment of resistance was based on growth characteristics, wherein decreased colony size in the presence of antifungal drugs was used as an indicator of susceptibility. Clinical Candida isolates of C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, C. guilliermondii, C. lusitaniae, C. rugosa and C. dubliniensis were screened for drug susceptibility. Overall, antifungal susceptibility of the yeasts to anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, posaconazole and voriconazole, determined using CHROMagar agar dilution, were shown to be 96, 80, 94, 90 and 97% as accurate, respectively, as those determined by the CLSI method, i.e., within one tube dilution of CLSI MICs. Categorical errors by percentage had a broader range. Major errors noted with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin were 3, 6 and 0%, respectively, while very major errors were 15, 55 and 38%, respectively. Major errors with posaconazole and voriconazole were 12 and 0%, respectively, while very major errors were 0 and 22%, respectively, compared to CLSI standards. Most of the assessment errors were found with C. glabrata and C. parapsilosis. Agar dilution screening for drug susceptibility with the current panel of antifungal drugs is rapid, accurate and effective. However, the determination of resistance or non-susceptibility in yeasts may be more problematic, and may be species dependent.
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.