Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25211336›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2014

Serological diagnosis of paracoccidioidomycosis: high rate of inter-laboratorial variability among medical mycology reference centers.

Monica Scarpelli Martinelli Vidal, Gilda Maria Barbaro Del Negro, Adriana Pardini Vicentini, Teresinha Inez Estivalet Svidzinski, Maria Jose Mendes-Giannini, Ana Marisa Fusco Almeida, Roberto Martinez, Zoilo Pires de Camargo, Carlos Pelleschi Taborda, Gil Benard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The story of Paracoccidiodes gp43.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023
    Review
  8. Fast and cost-effective protocol to produce Paracoccidioides spp. antigensBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Osteoarticular Mycoses.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Monica Scarpelli Martinelli VidalMedical Mycology Laboratory (IMTSP and LIM-53), Clinics Hospital of the Medical School and Tropical Medicine Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Gilda Maria Barbaro Del NegroMedical Mycology Laboratory (IMTSP and LIM-53), Clinics Hospital of the Medical School and Tropical Medicine Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Adriana Pardini VicentiniMycoses Immunodiagnosis Laboratory, Adolfo Lutz Institute, São Paulo (IAL-SP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Teresinha Inez Estivalet SvidzinskiMedical Mycology Laboratory, Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Clinical Analysis from Maringá(LEPAC), Maringá, Parana State, Brazil.
Maria Jose Mendes-GianniniClinical Mycology Laboratory, Pharmaceutical Sciences School, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Ana Marisa Fusco AlmeidaClinical Mycology Laboratory, Pharmaceutical Sciences School, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Roberto MartinezSerology Laboratory, Clinics Hospital, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine (FMRPUSP), São Paulo State, Brazil.
Zoilo Pires de CamargoMyco-serology Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Carlos Pelleschi TabordaMedical Mycology Laboratory (IMTSP and LIM-53), Clinics Hospital of the Medical School and Tropical Medicine Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil; Biomedical Sciences Institutes, Department of Microbiology, USP, São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Gil BenardMedical Mycology Laboratory (IMTSP and LIM-53), Clinics Hospital of the Medical School and Tropical Medicine Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerological tests have long been established as rapid, simple and inexpensive tools for the diagnosis and follow-up of PCM. However, different protocols and antigen preparations are used and the few attempts to standardize the routine serological methods have not succeeded. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe compared the performance of six Brazilian reference centers for serological diagnosis of PCM. Each center provided 30 sera of PCM patients, with positive high, intermediate and low titers, which were defined as the "reference" titers. Each center then applied its own antigen preparation and serological routine test, either semiquantitative double immunodifusion or counterimmmunoelectrophoresis, in the 150 sera from the other five centers blindly as regard to the "reference" titers. Titers were transformed into scores: 0 (negative), 1 (healing titers), 2 (active disease, low titers) and 3 (active disease, high titers) according to each center's criteria. Major discordances were considered between scores indicating active disease and scores indicating negative or healing titers; such discordance when associated with proper clinical and other laboratorial data, may correspond to different approaches to the patient's treatment. Surprisingly, all centers exhibited a high rate of "major" discordances with a mean of 31 (20%) discordant scores. Alternatively, when the scores given by one center to their own sera were compared with the scores given to their sera by the remaining five other centers, a high rate of major discordances was also found, with a mean number of 14.8 sera in 30 presenting a discordance with at least one other center. The data also suggest that centers that used CIE and pool of isolates for antigen preparation performed better.

conclusionThere are inconsistencies among the laboratories that are strong enough to result in conflicting information regarding the patients' treatment. Renewed efforts should be promoted to improve standardization of the serological diagnosis of PCM.

Indexed as

AgedBrazilFemaleHumansLaboratoriesParacoccidioidomycosisReproducibility of ResultsSerologic Tests

Identifiers

PMID25211336
PMCPMC4161321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.