ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2010
Advances and prospects for molecular diagnostics of fungal infections.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- ECIL recommendations for the use of biological markers for the diagnosis of invasive fungal diseases in leukemic patients and hematopoietic SCT recipients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2012Guideline
- Molecular Techniques for Genus and Species Determination of Fungi From Fresh and Paraffin-Embedded Formalin-Fixed Tissue in the Revised EORTC/MSGERC Definitions of Invasive Fungal Infection.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Characteristics of invasive aspergillosis in neutropenic haematology patients (Sousse, Tunisia).Mycopathologia · 2014Article
- Clinical significance of quantifying Pneumocystis jirovecii DNA by using real-time PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from immunocompromised patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods published for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections are still not included in the revised European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions of IA. This could be achieved with consensual PCR procedures. A checklist of items has been proposed to improve the reliability of the results and clinicians' confidence in them, with emphasis on limiting false-positive results from contamination with either previously amplified products or environmental commensals. Internal amplification controls are mandatory to expose false-negative results. However, our ignorance of the origin and the kinetics of fungal DNA during an infection hamper the choice of the best specimen and DNA extraction protocol. Evidence is increasing that serum could be a good compromise between sensitivity and ease of DNA extraction. Once a technical consensus is achieved, clinical studies should be initiated to integrate quantitative PCR in the diagnostic armamentarium.
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.