ArticleJournal of medical microbiology2017
Invitro antifungal susceptibilities of Candida species to liposomal amphotericin B, determined using CLSI broth microdilution, and amphotericin B deoxycholate, measured using the Etest.
Article in Journal of medical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable fabrication of dimorphic plant derived ZnO nanoparticles and exploration of their biomedical and environmental potentialities.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of Biofilm-Related Genes and Antifungal Susceptibility Pattern of VaginalBioMed research international · 2021Article
- Occurrence of Fungi in the Potable Water of Hospitals: A Public Health Threat.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Genomewide Elucidation of Drug Resistance Mechanisms for Systemically Used Antifungal Drugs Amphotericin B, Caspofungin, and Voriconazole in the Budding Yeast.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Combination antifungal therapy for treatment ofIDCases · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The antifungal susceptibilities of 598 isolates of Candida spp. (bloodstream and other sterile sites) to liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) versus amphotericin B (AmB) were determined. MICs were calculated using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (M27-A3) method for L-AmB and the Etest method for AmB. The MIC50/MIC90 (µg ml-1) values for L-AmB broth microdilution and AmB Etest were 0.25/1 and 0.19/0.5, respectively. The overall essential agreement (±2 dilutions) was 91.5 %, ranging from 37.5 % (Candida lusitaniae) to 100 % (Candida glabrata and Candida krusei). Categorical agreement between the two methods was categorized based on a previously published breakpoint (susceptible/resistant MIC cut-off of 1 µg ml-1). The overall categorical agreement at the 48 h reading was 97.3 %, ranging from 72.7 % (C. krusei) to 100 % (Candida albicans). Major and very major discrepancies occurred in 2.3 and 0.3 %, respectively. Spearman's ρ was 0.48 (P<0.0001). These results demonstrate the utility of the AmB Etest as a surrogate marker to predict the sensibility and resistance of Candida spp. to L-AmB and thus to support its use in antifungal treatment.
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.