SynthesisBioscience reports2019
Accuracy of matrix-assisted LASER desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry for identification of Candida.
Synthesis in Bioscience reports, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biofilm-related characteristics ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Approaches forMicroorganisms · 2025Review
- Distribution and antifungal susceptibility profiles of Candida species isolated from candidemia patients admitted to Egyptian tertiary hospitals: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Candida endocarditis: Update on management considerations.World journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCandida is a fungus that causes various types of candidemia, which is the fourth major infectious disease of the blood system. MALDI-TOF-MS is a simple and rapid detection instrument. The aim of the present study was to verify the accuracy of MALDI-TOF-MS in detecting Candida.
methodA pooled analysis of articles on MALDI-TOF-MS for diagnosis of candidemia was performed. The quality of original research was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) guidelines. Stata 12.0 software was used to merge the correct identification rates of Candida and Candida subspecies and obtain pooled sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods. Heterogeneity was found in the subgroup analysis of the included articles. Hence, we explored the factors causing the heterogeneity and its impact on the overall situation. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine the effect of Candida level on total response. Egger's test was used to evaluate the publication bias of the included articles.
resultsA total of 16 articles in Pubmed, 79 articles in Embase, 1 article in Cochrane Library, 30 articles in Web of Science and 3 from other sources were identified, of which 10 articles were included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall identification accuracy was 100%.
conclusionThe accuracy of MALDI-TOF-MS for the identification of Candida was 100%. Further research is necessary to determine whether MALDI-TOF-MS can be used as a clinical diagnostic standard for the identification of Candida.
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.