ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2016
Identification of mucorales from clinical specimens: a 4-year experience in a single institution.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two decades of mucormycosis: molecular epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility trends in Türkiye.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Isolated cerebral mucormycosis that looks like stroke and brain abscess: A case report and review of the literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Rapid detection of Mucorales based on recombinase polymerase amplification and real-time PCR.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Mucormycosis: risk factors, diagnosis, treatments, and challenges during COVID-19 pandemic.Folia microbiologica · 2022Review
- Bilateral Cerebral Mucormycosis in an Immunocompetent Female.Ochsner journal · 2022Article
- Mucormycosis co-infection in COVID-19 patients: An update.Open life sciences · 2022Review
- Dental and Oral Manifestations of COVID-19 Related Mucormycosis: Diagnoses, Management Strategies and Outcomes.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Isolated cerebral mucormycosis masquerading as a tumor in an immunocompetent patient.Autopsy & case reports · 2021Article
- Clinical Usefulness of Fungal Culture of EBUS-TBNA Needle Rinse Fluid and Core Tissue.Yonsei medical journal · 2020Article
- Superficial Cutaneous Zygomycosis Presenting as Resistant Intertrigo: A Case Report.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Fatal and Rapid Progressive Isolated Cerebral Mucormycosis Involving the Bilateral Basal Ganglia: A Case Report.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of mucormycosis.Medical mycology · 2018Review
- Identification of Mucorales isolates from soil using morphological and molecular methods.Current medical mycology · 2016Article
- Storm of a rare opportunistic life threatening mucormycosis among post COVID-19 patients: A tale of two pathogens.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mucormycosis, a fatal opportunistic infection in immunocompromised hosts, is caused by fungi belonging to the order Mucorales. Early diagnosis based on exact identification and multidisciplinary treatments is critical. However, identification of Mucorales fungi is difficult and often delayed, resulting in poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare the results of phenotypic and molecular identification of 12 Mucorales isolates collected from 4-yr-accumulated data. All isolates were identified on the basis of phenotypic characteristics such as growth rate, colony morphology, and reproductive structures. PCR and direct sequencing were performed to target internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and/or D1/D2 regions. Target DNA sequencing identified five Lichtheimia isolates, two Rhizopus microsporus isolates, two Rhizomucor pusillus isolates, one Cunninghamella bertholletiae isolate, one Mucor fragilis isolate, and one Syncephalastrum racemosum isolate. Five of the 12 (41.7%) isolates were incorrectly identified on the basis of phenotypic identification. DNA sequencing showed that of these five isolates, two were Lichtheimia isolates, one was Mucor isolate, one was Rhizomucor isolate, and one was Rhizopus microspores. All the isolates were identified at the species level by ITS and/or D1/D2 analyses. Phenotypic differentiation and identification of Mucorales is difficult because different Mucorales share similar morphology. Our results indicate that the molecular methods employed in this study are valuable for identifying Mucorales.
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.