ArticleVeterinary research communications2010
Antimycotic effectiveness against dermatophytes: comparison of two in vitro tests.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicted no effect concentrations of antifungals for wastewater management and agricultural use.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Synergistic Effects of Efflux Pump Modulators on the Azole Antifungal Susceptibility of Microsporum canis.Mycopathologia · 2020Article
- Therapy and Antifungal Susceptibility Profile ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Isolation, Identification, and In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes from Clinical Samples at Sohag University Hospital in Egypt.Electronic physician · 2016Article
- In-vitro Activity of 10 Antifungal Agents against 320 Dermatophyte Strains Using Microdilution Method in Tehran.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2013Article
- Comparative Analysis ofIndian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seven antimycotic drugs (econazole, enilconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and miconazole) were tested against 36 dermatophyte strains (19 M. canis, 7 T. mentagrophytes, 5 M. gypseum, 2 M. cookei, 1 T. rubrum, 1 T. ajelloi, and 1 T. terrestre) isolated from animals, humans, and the environment. Two in vitro methods were compared: a micro-dilution test based on the CLSI M38-A method, and a disk-diffusion test. Fluconazole was not effective in vitro against the dermatophytes. Econazole and enilconazole were the most effective. Thirteen strains were griseofulvin-resistant. The correlation between the two methods was statistically significant for enilconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, and miconazole.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20490661What 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.