Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31487793›Full record

ReviewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Olivia A Todd, Brian M Peters

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Virulence · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Secreted factors ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. MixedJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Control ofFuture microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Endophytic Fungi ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Time-lapse mesoscopy ofMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Olivia A ToddIntegrated Program in Biomedical Sciences, College of Graduate Health Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA. otodd@uthsc.edu.
Brian M PetersDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Translational Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA. brian.peters@uthsc.edu.
University of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

Host and microbial factors promoting synergistic mortality during polymicrobial intra-abdominal infections with Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureusR01AI116025 · NIAID · TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA · PI NOVERR, MAIRI C · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases R01AI116025NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI116025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While Koch's Postulates have established rules for microbial pathogenesis that have been extremely beneficial for monomicrobial infections, new studies regarding polymicrobial pathogenesis defy these standards. The explosion of phylogenetic sequence data has revolutionized concepts of microbial interactions on and within the host. However, there remains a paucity of functional follow-up studies to delineate mechanisms driven by such interactions and how they shape health or disease. That said, one particular microbial pairing, the fungal opportunist

Indexed as

biofilmCandida albicansco-infectionfungal-bacterialpolymicrobialquorum sensingStaphylococcus aureussynergismtoxin

Identifiers

PMID31487793
PMCPMC6787713
OpenAlexW2972102031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.