Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22391546›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2012

Cryptococcus neoformans-Cryptococcus gattii species complex: an international study of wild-type susceptibility endpoint distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for amphotericin B and flucytosine.

A Espinel-Ingroff, A Chowdhary, M Cuenca-Estrella, A Fothergill, J Fuller, F Hagen, N Govender, J Guarro, E Johnson, C Lass-Flörl and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. InFuture microbiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Optimizing antifungal dosing for invasiveFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Antifungal Resistance in Cryptococcal Infections.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Synergistic antifungal interaction ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  17. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

21 authors at 18 institutions in 10 countries.

A Espinel-IngroffVCU Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
A Chowdhary
M Cuenca-Estrella
A Fothergill
J Fuller
F Hagen
N Govender
J Guarro
E Johnson
C Lass-Flörl
S R Lockhart
M A Martins
J F Meis
M S C Melhem
L Ostrosky-Zeichner
T Pelaez
M A Pfaller
W A Schell
L Trilles
S Kidd
J Turnidge
Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLInstituto Adolfo Lutz · BRCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USDuke Medical Center · USFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESInnsbruck Medical University · ATInstitut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESNational Health Laboratory Service · ZAThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Delhi · INUniversity of Iowa · USVirginia Commonwealth University Medical Center · USWomen's and Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical breakpoints (CBPs) are not available for the Cryptococcus neoformans-Cryptococcus gattii species complex. MIC distributions were constructed for the wild type (WT) to establish epidemiologic cutoff values (ECVs) for C. neoformans and C. gattii versus amphotericin B and flucytosine. A total of 3,590 amphotericin B and 3,045 flucytosine CLSI MICs for C. neoformans (including 1,002 VNI isolates and 8 to 39 VNII, VNIII, and VNIV isolates) and 985 and 853 MICs for C. gattii, respectively (including 42 to 259 VGI, VGII, VGIII, and VGIV isolates), were gathered in 9 to 16 (amphotericin B) and 8 to 13 (flucytosine) laboratories (Europe, United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, and South Africa) and aggregated for the analyses. Additionally, 442 amphotericin B and 313 flucytosine MICs measured by using CLSI-YNB medium instead of CLSI-RPMI medium and 237 Etest amphotericin B MICs for C. neoformans were evaluated. CLSI-RPMI ECVs for distributions originating in ≥3 laboratories (with the percentages of isolates for which MICs were less than or equal to ECVs given in parentheses) were as follows: for amphotericin B, 0.5 μg/ml for C. neoformans VNI (97.2%) and C. gattii VGI and VGIIa (99.2 and 97.5%, respectively) and 1 μg/ml for C. neoformans (98.5%) and C. gattii nontyped (100%) and VGII (99.2%) isolates; for flucytosine, 4 μg/ml for C. gattii nontyped (96.4%) and VGI (95.7%) isolates, 8 μg/ml for VNI (96.6%) isolates, and 16 μg/ml for C. neoformans nontyped (98.6%) and C. gattii VGII (97.1%) isolates. Other molecular types had apparent variations in MIC distributions, but the number of laboratories contributing data was too low to allow us to ascertain that the differences were due to factors other than assay variation. ECVs may aid in the detection of isolates with acquired resistance mechanisms.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAnti-Bacterial AgentsCryptococcus gattiiCryptococcus neoformansFlucytosineMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAmphotericin BAnti-Bacterial AgentsFlucytosine

Identifiers

PMID22391546
PMCPMC3370763
OpenAlexW2057651961

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.