Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26295947›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Validation of High Resolution Melting Analysis (HRM) of the Amplified ITS2 Region for the Detection and Identification of Yeasts from Clinical Samples: Comparison with Culture and MALDI-TOF Based Identification.

Hans Duyvejonck, Piet Cools, Johan Decruyenaere, Kristien Roelens, Lucien Noens, Stefan Vermeulen, Geert Claeys, Ellen Decat, Els Van Mechelen, Mario Vaneechoutte

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Second trimester vaginalFrontiers in global women's health · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Drug Resistance-Associated Mutations inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluation of a Novel Mitochondrial Pan-Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hans DuyvejonckLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Keramiekstraat 80, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Piet CoolsLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Johan DecruyenaereDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristien RoelensDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University Hospital, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Lucien NoensDepartment of Haematology and Blood Bank, Ghent University Hospital, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Stefan VermeulenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Keramiekstraat 80, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Geert ClaeysDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ellen DecatLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Els Van MechelenDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Keramiekstraat 80, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Mario VaneechoutteLaboratory Bacteriology Research, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimCandida species are known as opportunistic pathogens, and a possible cause of invasive infections. Because of their species-specific antimycotic resistance patterns, reliable techniques for their detection, quantification and identification are needed. We validated a DNA amplification method for direct detection of Candida spp. from clinical samples, namely the ITS2-High Resolution Melting Analysis (direct method), by comparing it with a culture and MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry based method (indirect method) to establish the presence of Candida species in three different types of clinical samples. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 347 clinical samples, i.e. throat swabs, rectal swabs and vaginal swabs, were collected from the gynaecology/obstetrics, intensive care and haematology wards at the Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. For the direct method, ITS2-HRM was preceded by NucliSENS easyMAG DNA extraction, directly on the clinical samples. For the indirect method, clinical samples were cultured on Candida ID and individual colonies were identified by MALDI-TOF.

resultsFor 83.9% of the samples there was complete concordance between both techniques, i.e. the same Candida species were detected in 31.1% of the samples or no Candida species were detected in 52.8% of the samples. In 16.1% of the clinical samples, discrepant results were obtained, of which only 6.01% were considered as major discrepancies. Discrepancies occurred mostly when overall numbers of Candida cells in the samples were low and/or when multiple species were present in the sample. DISCUSSION: Most of the discrepancies could be decided in the advantage of the direct method. This is due to samples in which no yeast could be cultured whereas low amounts could be detected by the direct method and to samples in which high quantities of Candida robusta according to ITS2-HRM were missed by culture on Candida ID agar. It remains to be decided whether the diagnostic advantages of the direct method compensate for its disadvantages.

Indexed as

CandidaCandidiasisDNA, FungalDNA, RibosomalFemaleHumansLimit of DetectionMycological Typing TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesNucleic Acid DenaturationPharynxRectumSpecies SpecificitySpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationVaginaDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal

Identifiers

PMID26295947
PMCPMC4546670

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.