ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Interlaboratory reproducibility of Etest amphotericin B and caspofungin yeast susceptibility testing and comparison with the CLSI method.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-Head Comparison of Etest, MICRONAUT-AM EUCAST and Reference Broth Microdilution-Based CLSI Results forJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Molecular Characterization and Sterol Profiles Identify Nonsynonymous Mutations inMicrobiology spectrum · 2023Article
- E-test Determination of Antifungal Susceptibility ofJournal of veterinary research · 2020Article
- Antifungal Susceptibly Testing by Concentration Gradient Strip Etest Method for Fungal Isolates: A Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Article
- Invitro antifungal susceptibilities of Candida species to liposomal amphotericin B, determined using CLSI broth microdilution, and amphotericin B deoxycholate, measured using the Etest.Journal of medical microbiology · 2017Article
- Antifungal Susceptibility Testing with Etest for Candida Species Isolated from Patients with Oral Candidiasis.Annals of dermatology · 2015Article
- Comparative Analysis of Disc Diffusion and E-test with Broth Micro-dilution for Susceptibility Testing of Clinical Candida Isolates Against Amphotericin B, Fluconazole, Voriconazole and Caspofungin.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015Article
- In vitro activities of amphotericin B deoxycholate and liposomal amphotericin B against 604 clinical yeast isolates.Journal of medical microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.