ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Multicenter evaluation of Candida QuickFISH BC for identification of Candida species directly from blood culture bottles.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. 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.
- A PCR-Reverse Dot Blot Hybridization Based Microfluidics Detection System for the Rapid Identification of 13 Fungal Pathogens Directly After Blood Cultures Over a Period of Time.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Chemical approaches to discover the full potential of peptide nucleic acids in biomedical applications.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2021Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of a PCR-Based Digital Microfluidics and Electrochemical Detection System for the Rapid Identification of 15 Fungal Pathogens Directly from Positive Blood Cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Molecular Microbiology: A 2018 Snapshot.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2018Review
- Recent Progress in the Diagnosis of Pathogenic Candida Species in Blood Culture.Mycopathologia · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candida species are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSI), with high mortality. Four species cause >90% of Candida BSI: C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis. Differentiation of Candida spp. is important because of differences in virulence and antimicrobial susceptibility. Candida QuickFISH BC, a multicolor, qualitative nucleic acid hybridization assay for the identification of C. albicans (green fluorescence), C. glabrata (red fluorescence), and C. parapsilosis (yellow fluorescence), was tested on Bactec and BacT/Alert blood culture bottles which signaled positive on automated blood culture devices and were positive for yeast by Gram stain at seven study sites. The results were compared to conventional identification. A total of 419 yeast-positive blood culture bottles were studied, consisting of 258 clinical samples (89 C. glabrata, 79 C. albicans, 23 C. parapsilosis, 18 C. tropicalis, and 49 other species) and 161 contrived samples inoculated with clinical isolates (40 C. glabrata, 46 C. albicans, 36 C. parapsilosis, 19 C. tropicalis, and 20 other species). A total of 415 samples contained a single fungal species, with C. glabrata (n = 129; 30.8%) being the most common isolate, followed by C. albicans (n = 125; 29.8%), C. parapsilosis (n = 59; 14.1%), C. tropicalis (n = 37; 8.8%), and C. krusei (n = 17; 4.1%). The overall agreement (with range for the three major Candida species) between the two methods was 99.3% (98.3 to 100%), with a sensitivity of 99.7% (98.3 to 100%) and a specificity of 98.0% (99.4 to 100%). This study showed that Candida QuickFISH BC is a rapid and accurate method for identifying C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. parapsilosis, the three most common Candida species causing BSI, directly from blood culture bottles.
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.