Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31263912›Full record

ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2019

[Do the new molecular assays-microarray and realtime polymerase chain reaction-for dermatophyte detection keep what they promise?]

S Uhrlaß, F Wittig, D Koch, C Krüger, M Harder, G Gaajetaan, G Dingemans, P Nenoff

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of Fungal Culture, DermaGeniusJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of the Multiplex Real-Time PCR DermaGeniusJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

S UhrlaßLabor für medizinische Mikrobiologie, Mölbiser Hauptstr. 8, 04571, Rötha/OT Mölbis, Deutschland. S.Uhrlass@Mykologie-Experten.de.
F WittigLabor für medizinische Mikrobiologie, Mölbiser Hauptstr. 8, 04571, Rötha/OT Mölbis, Deutschland.
D KochLabor für medizinische Mikrobiologie, Mölbiser Hauptstr. 8, 04571, Rötha/OT Mölbis, Deutschland.
C KrügerLabor für medizinische Mikrobiologie, Mölbiser Hauptstr. 8, 04571, Rötha/OT Mölbis, Deutschland.
M HarderEuroimmun AG, Seekamp 31, 23560, Lübeck, Deutschland.
G GaajetaanPathoNostics B.V., Randwycksingel 45, 6229 EG, Maastricht, Niederlande.
G DingemansPathoNostics B.V., Randwycksingel 45, 6229 EG, Maastricht, Niederlande.
P NenoffLabor für medizinische Mikrobiologie, Mölbiser Hauptstr. 8, 04571, Rötha/OT Mölbis, Deutschland.
Theranostics (New Zealand) · NZEuroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, a novel real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (DermaGenius®2.0, PathoNostics BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands) and a recently developed microarray test (EUROArray Dermatomycosis, Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany) were evaluated regarding their diagnostic specificity to identify dermatophyte DNA. The tests were compared to conventional methods and sequencing. The microarray Dermatomycosis test allows the detection of 50 dermatophytes and definitive identification of 23 dermatophyte species, 6 yeasts and moulds combined in one test. In comparison, real-time PCR is able to identify 11 dermatophytes and one yeast at the species level. Using the EUROArray, 22 out of 24 dermatophyte species were correctly identified. Using real-time PCR, 9 out of the 11 different dermatophytes included in the test kit were correctly identified. Both molecular tests for detection and differentiation of dermatophytes are useful tools for daily clinical practice. The real-time PCR test does not detect as many species, and specificity is slightly lower. However, real-time PCR is a very fast and easy to perform test, especially since no post-PCR step is necessary. Real-time PCR detects the most frequent dermatophytes like T. rubrum, T. interdigitale, and M. canis without any problems. The EUROArray is more elaborate to perform in the lab, due to the hybridization step. However, the EUROArray shows higher specificity and can detect a much broader range of causative agents, including rare species, in dermatomycology.

Indexed as

DermatomycosesDNA, FungalGermanyHumansMicrosporumNetherlandsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionTrichophytonDNA, FungalDiagnosticsFungal pathogen detectionMicrosporum ferrugineumTrichophyton rubrumTrichophyton soudanense

Identifiers

PMID31263912
OpenAlexW2954744613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.