ArticleJPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association2012
Species identification of invasive yeasts including Candida in Pakistan: limitations of phenotypic methods.
Article in JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Omics and Multiomics-Based Diagnostics for Invasive Candidiasis: Toward Precision Medicine.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2025Review
- xMAP Technology: Applications in Detection of Pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
- Phenotypic Detection of Genitourinary Candidiasis among Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic Attendees in Ladoke Akintola University Teaching Hospital, Osogbo, Nigeria.Journal of environmental and public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare phenotypic and genotypic methods of yeast identification.
methodsThe in-vitro cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2006 to May 2009. Invasive yeasts isolated at the clinical microbiology laboratory at the Aga Khan University (AKU), Karachi, Pakistan, were identified. Speciation by phenotypic and molecular methods was compared. All yeasts isolated during the study period from blood and other invasive sites were identified using standard methods. Isolates were shipped to Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, for identification by Luminex flow cytometric multianalyte profiling (xMAP) system. Ribosomal ITS2 DNA sequencing was performed on isolates not identified by Luminex.
resultOf the 214 invasive yeasts evaluated, Candida species were 209 (97.7%) while the frequency of non-Candida species was 5 (2.3%). Overall agreement between phenotypic and molecular identification was 81.3%, 90.3% amongst the more common Candida species, and only 38.8% amongst the uncommon yeasts.
conclusionPhenotypic methods of identification proved adequate for common Candida species, but were deficient in recognising rare Candida and non-Candida yeasts, highlighting the importance of molecular methods for identification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23866432PMC4624294W2465700594What 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.