Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25870071›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015

Evaluation of a modified EUCAST fragmented-mycelium inoculum method for in vitro susceptibility testing of dermatophytes and the activity of novel antifungal agents.

B Risslegger, C Lass-Flörl, G Blum, M Lackner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Isolation and Identification ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The in vitro Activity of Echinocandins Against ClinicalInfection and drug resistance · 2023
    Article
  5. In vitro susceptibility testing for black grain eumycetoma causative agents.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2021
    Article
  6. Comparison of Four Methods for theFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

B RissleggerDepartment of Hygiene, Microbiology and Social Medicine, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
C Lass-FlörlDepartment of Hygiene, Microbiology and Social Medicine, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
G BlumDepartment of Hygiene, Microbiology and Social Medicine, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
M LacknerDepartment of Hygiene, Microbiology and Social Medicine, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria Michaela.Lackner@i-med.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For antifungal susceptibility testing of nonsporulating or poorly sporulating dermatophytes, a fragmented-mycelium inoculum preparation method was established and compared to broth microdilution testing according to CLSI and EUCAST guidelines. Moreover, the in vitro activity of new antifungal agents against dermatophytes was evaluated. Agreement between the mycelial inoculum method and the CLSI broth microdilution method was high (93% to 100%). Echinocandins (minimal effective concentration [MEC], ≤0.5 mg/liter) and posaconazole (MIC, ≤3.00 mg/liter) showed good activity against all tested dermatophytes.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsEchinocandinsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMyceliumTriazolesTrichophytonAntifungal AgentsEchinocandinsposaconazoleTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID25870071
PMCPMC4432114

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.