ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2016
In Vitro Antifungal Activities against Moulds Isolated from Dermatological Specimens.
Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atypical presentation for a gastrointestinal basidiobolomycosis and rare side effect of Voriconazole: A case report and literature review.Medical mycology case reports · 2025Article
- Time to Think Antifungal Resistance Increased Antifungal Resistance Exacerbates the Burden of Fungal Infections Including Resistant Dermatomycoses.Pathogens & immunity · 2023Article
- Experimental Phaeohyphomycosis ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Molecular Epidemiology and Antifungal Susceptibility ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A 23 bpFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Antifungal Drug Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes: Laboratory Findings to Clinical Implications.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of various antifungal agents against moulds isolated from dermatological specimens.
methodsWe identified 29 moulds from dermatological specimens between October 2012 and March 2013 by conventional methods. We performed antifungal susceptibility testing on six antifungal agents, amphotericin B, clotrimazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole and terbinafine, according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines contained in the M38-A2 document.
resultsMost antifungal agents were active against the dermatophytes, except for terbinafine against Trichophyton rubrum (geometric mean MIC, MICGM 3.17 μg/mL). The dematiaceous moulds were relatively susceptible to amphotericin B and azoles (MICGM 0.17-0.34 μg/mL), but not to terbinafine (MICGM 3.62 μg/mL). Septate hyaline moulds showed variable results between the relatively more susceptible Aspergillus spp. (MICGM 0.25-4 μg/mL) and the more resistant Fusarium spp. (MICGM 5.66-32 μg/mL). The zygomycetes were susceptible to amphotericin B (MICGM 0.5 μg/mL) and clotrimazole (MICGM 0.08 μg/mL), but not to other azoles (MICGM 2.52-4 μg/mL).
conclusionAmphotericin B and clotrimazole were the most effective antifungal agents against all moulds excepting Fusarium spp., while terbinafine was useful against dermatophytes (except T. rubrum) and Aspergillus spp. However, a larger study is required to draw more solid conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27418867PMC4934716W2504452360What 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.