ArticleMycopathologia2016
Comparison of Vitek Matrix-assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry Versus Conventional Methods in Candida Identification.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Molecular Identification, Virulence Factors, and Antifungal Susceptibility Profiles ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of PCR-RFLP with 21-plex PCR and rDNA Sequencing for Identification of Clinical Yeast Isolates.Mycopathologia · 2021Article
- Epidemiology of yeast species causing bloodstream infection in Tehran, Iran (2015-2017); superiority of 21-plex PCR over the Vitek 2 system for yeast identification.Journal of medical microbiology · 2020Article
- Comparison of 21-Plex PCR and API 20C AUX, MALDI-TOF MS, and rDNA Sequencing for a Wide Range of Clinically Isolated Yeast Species: Improved Identification by Combining 21-Plex PCR and API 20C AUX as an Alternative Strategy for Developing Countries.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2019Article
- An Update onFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candida species are generally identified by conventional methods such as germ tube or morphological appearance on corn meal agar, biochemical methods using API kits and molecular biological methods. Alternative to these methods, rapid and accurate identification methods of microorganisms called matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDİ-TOF MS) has recently been described. In this study, Candida identification results by API Candida kit, API 20C AUX kit and identifications on corn meal agar (CMA) are compared with the results obtained on Vitek-MS. All results were confirmed by sequencing internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of rDNA. Totally, 97 Candida strains were identified by germ tube test, CMA, API and Vitek-MS. Vitek-MS results were compatible with 74.2 % of API 20C AUX and 81.4 % of CMA results. The difference between the results of API Candida and API 20C AUX was detected. The ratio of discrepancy between Vitek-MS and API 20C AUX was 25.8 %. Candida species mostly identified as C. famata or C. tropicalis by and not compatible with API kits were identified as C. albicans by Vitek-MS. Sixteen Candida species having discrepant results with Vitek-MS, API or CMA were randomly chosen, and ITS sequence analysis was performed. The results of sequencing were compatible 56.2 % with API 20C AUX, 50 % with CMA and 93.7 % with Vitek-MS. When compared with conventional identification methods, MS results are more reliable and rapid for Candida identification. MS system may be used as routine identification method in clinical microbiology laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26400863What 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.