ArticleFolia microbiologica2017
Methods of Candida dubliniensis identification and its occurrence in human clinical material.
Article in Folia microbiologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species Distribution, Characterization, and Antifungal Susceptibility Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Septic arthritis caused byMedical mycology case reports · 2024Article
- gDNA extraction from Candida albicans and Candida dubliniensis in subgingival samples in Argentina. Evaluation of different methods.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2023Article
- Candida dubliniensis fungemia in a patient with severe COVID-19: A case report.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candida dubliniensis was reported as a new species in 1995. This species is often misidentified as Candida albicans. The aims of this work were to determine the occurrence of C. dubliniensis in various clinical materials, to evaluate several ways to identify it and to examine the genetic variability of isolates. Among 7706 isolates originally identified as C. albicans, 237 were identified as C. dubliniensis (3.1%). Most of the C. dubliniensis isolates were obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract (61.4 and 22.9%). Five phenotypic methods including latex agglutination were used (cultivation on CHROMagar Candida, on Staib agar, at 42 °C and in medium with 6.5% NaCl), but only cultivation on the medium with an increased concentration of NaCl and latex agglutination gave reliable results. Species-specific polymerase chain reaction was used as the confirmation method. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry provided less reliable results. In fact, 78.9% of C. dubliniensis isolates had scores above 1.7. However, the rest of them (21.1%) were also identified as C. dubliniensis even when the scores were lower than 1.7. Divergences among C. dubliniensis strains were evaluated by means of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Eighty-six selected C. dubliniensis isolates showed a 69.6% level of similarity. The results of this study expand the knowledge of the incidence, means of identification and genotypic divergence of C. dubliniensis isolates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28516267What 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.