Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24570038›Full record

ArticleMycopathologia2014

Evaluation of Etest performed in Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with glucose for antifungal susceptibility testing of clinical isolates of filamentous fungi.

E Pinto, M Lago, L Branco, L A Vale-Silva, M D Pinheiro

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Mycopathologia, 2014. 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
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

5 authors.

E PintoCEQUIMED-UP, Laboratory of Microbiology, Biological Sciences Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
M Lago
L Branco
L A Vale-Silva
M D Pinheiro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although reference broth microdilution protocol is currently available for filamentous fungi antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST), simpler alternatives as Etest(®) tend to be favoured in clinical routine, making their validation of utmost importance. In this study, Etest(®) method using 2% glucose supplemented Muller-Hinton agar was compared to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38-A2 protocol for filamentous fungi AFST. The echinocandins, caspofungin and anidulafungin, the azoles voriconazole and posaconazole, and the polyene amphotericin B were tested against 48 Aspergillus spp., seven Fusarium spp., one Beauveria bassiana and three Paecilomyces lilacinus isolates. The majority of the isolates were susceptible to the antifungals tested, and the overall level of agreement between the CLSI and Etest methods was 71.9% for one dilution and 99.7% when using two dilutions. Since interpretative breakpoints for filamentous fungi employing the CLSI or Etest methods are not available yet, the established epidemiological cut-off values for Aspergillus spp. were used to distinguish wild-type isolates from those with acquired resistance mechanisms. Forty-five Aspergillus strains did not evidence resistance mutations.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntifungal AgentsCulture MediaFemaleFungiGlucoseHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedMycosesYoung AdultAntifungal AgentsCulture MediaGlucose

Identifiers

PMID24570038

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.