Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21482725›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2011

Histopathologic diagnosis of fungal infections in the 21st century.

Jeannette Guarner, Mary E Brandt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 351 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
351citing 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

351 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

291 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Jeannette GuarnerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. jguarne@emory.edu
Mary E Brandt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungal infections are becoming more frequent because of expansion of at-risk populations and the use of treatment modalities that permit longer survival of these patients. Because histopathologic examination of tissues detects fungal invasion of tissues and vessels as well as the host reaction to the fungus, it is and will remain an important tool to define the diagnostic significance of positive culture isolates or results from PCR testing. However, there are very few instances where the morphological characteristics of fungi are specific. Therefore, histopathologic diagnosis should be primarily descriptive of the fungus and should include the presence or absence of tissue invasion and the host reaction to the infection. The pathology report should also include a comment stating the most frequent fungi associated with that morphology as well as other possible fungi and parasites that should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Alternate techniques have been used to determine the specific agent present in the histopathologic specimen, including immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization, and PCR. In addition, techniques such as laser microdissection will be useful to detect the now more frequently recognized dual fungal infections and the local environment in which this phenomenon occurs.

Indexed as

FungiHistocytochemistryHumansImmunohistochemistryIn Situ HybridizationMycosesPathology, MolecularPolymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID21482725
PMCPMC3122495

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.