ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2016
Intra- and Interlaboratory Agreement in Assessing the In Vitro Activity of Micafungin against Common and Rare Candida Species with the EUCAST, CLSI, and Etest Methods.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetic Properties of Micafungin in Critically Ill Patients Diagnosed with Invasive Candidiasis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Trial
- Heterogeneity ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Article
- Population Pharmacokinetic Model and Optimal Sampling Strategies for Micafungin in Critically Ill Patients Diagnosed with Invasive Candidiasis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Meyerozyma guilliermondii species complex: review of current epidemiology, antifungal resistance, and mechanisms.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022Review
- How Yeast Antifungal Resistance Gene Analysis Is Essential to Validate Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Systems.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Microbiological Profiles of Ocular Fungal Infection at an Ophthalmic Referral Hospital in Southern China: A Ten-Year Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Role and Interpretation of Antifungal Susceptibility Testing for the Management of Invasive Fungal Infections.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Fungemia Surveillance in Denmark Demonstrates Emergence of Non-albicans Candida Species and Higher Antifungal Usage and Resistance Rates than in Other Nations.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- An Azole-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Analysis of distribution and antibiotic resistance of pathogens isolated from the paediatric population in Shenmu Hospital from 2011-2015.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Article
- Etest and Sensititre YeastOne Susceptibility Testing of Echinocandins against Candida Species from a Single Center in Austria.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of resistant strains among common and rare Candida species necessitates continuous monitoring of the in vitro susceptibilities of those isolates. We therefore assessed the in vitro activities of micafungin against 1,099 molecularly identified isolates belonging to 5 common and 20 rare Candida species by the EUCAST, CLSI, and Etest methods, assessing both the intralaboratory agreement and the interlaboratory agreement for two centers. The median micafungin EUCAST MICs were as follows, from the lowest to the highest: for Candida albicans, 0.004 mg/liter; for C. glabrata, 0.016 mg/liter; for C. tropicalis, 0.031 mg/liter; for C. krusei, 0.125 mg/liter; for C. parapsilosis, 2 mg/liter. Among rare Candida species, high MICs were found for C. guilliermondii, C. lipolytica, C. orthopsilosis, C. metapsilosis, and C. fermentati. No resistant isolates were found by the CLSI method, whereas resistance rates of 1 to 2% were found by the EUCAST method. Overall, the EUCAST method resulted in MICs 1 to 2 dilutions higher than those found by the CLSI and Etest methods. The intra- and interlaboratory agreement between methods was >92%, except for the interlaboratory agreement between the EUCAST and CLSI methods (81%), where 17 to 31% of the differences were >2 2-fold dilutions for C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, and other rare Candida species and <6% for C. parapsilosis and C. krusei For the other interlaboratory comparisons, the EUCAST method resulted in higher MICs than the Etest method for all species, but <7% of these differences were >2 2-fold dilutions. Overall, the CLSI method resulted in lower MICs than the Etest method, with 11% of all isolates demonstrating >2 2-fold-dilution differences (6 to 20% for C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and rare Candida species; <5% for C. glabrata, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis) and smaller differences found after 24 h. Despite these differences, categorical agreement was excellent (>97%), with only 1 to 2% very major errors between the EUCAST method and the other two methods.
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.