ArticleMycopathologia2012
Susceptibility screening of hyphae-forming fungi with a new, easy, and fast inoculum preparation method.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dermatophytic Biofilms: Characteristics, Significance and Treatment Approaches.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- In vitro susceptibility testing for black grain eumycetoma causative agents.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2021Article
- Comparison of Four Methods for theFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of a modified EUCAST fragmented-mycelium inoculum method for in vitro susceptibility testing of dermatophytes and the activity of novel antifungal agents.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2015Article
- Phylogenetic relationships matter: antifungal susceptibility among clinically relevant yeasts.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vitro susceptibility testing of clinically important fungi becomes more and more essential due to the rising number of fungal infections in patients with impaired immune system. Existing standardized microbroth dilution methods for in vitro testing of molds (CLSI, EUCAST) are not intended for routine testing. These methods are very time-consuming and dependent on sporulating of hyphomycetes. In this multicentre study, a new (independent of sporulation) inoculum preparation method (containing a mixture of vegetative cells, hyphae, and conidia) was evaluated. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of amphotericin B, posaconazole, and voriconazole of 180 molds were determined with two different culture media (YST and RPMI 1640) according to the DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) microdilution assay. 24 and 48 h MIC of quality control strains, tested per each test run, prepared with the new inoculum method were in the range of DIN. YST and RPMI 1640 media showed similar MIC distributions for all molds tested. MIC readings at 48 versus 24 h yield 1 log(2) higher MIC values and more than 90 % of the MICs read at 24 and 48 h were within ± 2 log(2) dilution. MIC end point reading (log(2 MIC-RPMI 1640)-log(2 MIC-YST)) of both media demonstrated a tendency to slightly lower MICs with RPMI 1640 medium. This study reports the results of a new, time-saving, and easy-to-perform method for inoculum preparation for routine susceptibility testing that can be applied for all types of spore-/non-spore and hyphae-forming fungi.
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.