Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22553230›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012

Interlaboratory reproducibility of Etest amphotericin B and caspofungin yeast susceptibility testing and comparison with the CLSI method.

S Ranque, L Lachaud, M Gari-Toussaint, A Michel-Nguyen, M Mallié, J Gaudart, S Bertout

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. E-test Determination of Antifungal Susceptibility ofJournal of veterinary research · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S RanqueParasitology and Mycology, CHU Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. stephane.ranque@ap-hm.fr
L Lachaud
M Gari-Toussaint
A Michel-Nguyen
M Mallié
J Gaudart
S Bertout
Aix-Marseille Université · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRHôpital l'Archet · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the interlaboratory reproducibility at four university hospital laboratories in the southeast region of France of the Etest technique for the determination of caspofungin (CAS) and amphotericin B (AMB) MICs and to compare it to the CLSI broth microdilution reference method. Consecutive clinical yeast isolates (n = 198) were included in the study. AMB and CAS MICs were read at 24 and 48 h. Interlaboratory reproducibility was estimated by using (i) an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), (ii) essential agreement (EA), and (iii) categorical agreement (CA). For Etest interlaboratory reproducibility for CAS, ICCs were 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.84) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.85) at 24 and 48 h, respectively. For AMB, the ICCs were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.58) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74) at 24 and 48 h, respectively. At 48 h, the between-center EAs ranged from 94.4 to 99.0% for both antifungals. For the comparison of the CLSI method and the Etest, the between-technique ICCs were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.68) for CAS and AMB, respectively. The EAs ranged from 76.5 to 98.5% for CAS and from 90.3 to 97.4% for AMB according to the centers. CAs ranged from 87.9% to 91.4%, with four very major errors for 2 strains (1 Candida albicans strain and 1 Candida krusei strain), for CAS and from 97.5 to 99.5%, with four major errors, for AMB. In conclusion, the Etest showed a good interlaboratory reproducibility and a good correlation with the CLSI technique. It is well suited for the routine clinical laboratory and can thus be used to monitor clinical yeast isolates' in vitro susceptibilities in this setting.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCandidaCaspofunginEchinocandinsFranceHospitals, UniversityHumansLipopeptidesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsReproducibility of ResultsAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCaspofunginEchinocandinsLipopeptides

Identifiers

PMID22553230
PMCPMC3405630
OpenAlexW2142732358

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.