Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24403302›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Impact of new antifungal breakpoints on antifungal resistance in Candida species.

Annette W Fothergill, Deanna A Sutton, Dora I McCarthy, Nathan P Wiederhold

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of Biofilm Formation by VaginalJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Emerging of Fatal Colitis with Multidrug-ResistantCase reports in transplantation · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Do we need to adopt antifungal stewardship programmes?European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2020
    Article
  15. Evaluation of the Antifungal Activity ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Determination of antimicotic susceptibility pattern ofJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2019
    Article
  18. Genotyping ofCurrent medical mycology · 2018
    Article
  19. Antifungal Susceptibility and Clinical Outcome in Neonatal Candidiasis.The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2018
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Annette W FothergillFungus Testing Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Deanna A Sutton
Dora I McCarthy
Nathan P Wiederhold

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We reviewed our antifungal susceptibility data for micafungin, anidulafungin, fluconazole, and voriconazole against Candida species and compared resistance rates determined by the previous and recently revised CLSI antifungal breakpoints. With the new breakpoints, resistance was significantly increased for micafungin (from 0.8% to 7.6%), anidulafungin (from 0.9% to 7.3%), and voriconazole (from 6.1% to 18.4%) against Candida glabrata. Resistance was also increased for fluconazole against Candida albicans (from 2.1% to 5.7%).

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, FungalAntifungal AgentsCandidaCandidiasisHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID24403302
PMCPMC3957792

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.