Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32458313›Full record

ReviewMycopathologia2020

Immunodiagnostic Assays for the Investigation of Fungal Outbreaks.

Diego H Caceres, Tom Chiller, Mark D Lindsley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mycopathologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Diego H CaceresMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-9809
Tom ChillerMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA.
Mark D LindsleyMycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. MLindsley@cdc.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungal pathogens can affect humans, animals, and plants, and they can be found in the environment or as part of the host microbiome. Fungal diseases present a broad clinical spectrum, ranging from superficial to invasive infections, and can cause outbreaks. During an outbreak investigation, the laboratory plays an essential role in verifying the diagnosis and helping to confirm the source of the outbreak. Immunodiagnostic assays are important tools and often relied upon for the diagnosis of fungal infections, since the gold standard assays of culture and histopathology are time-consuming and often require invasive procedures. Immunodiagnostic assays range from complement fixation and immunodiffusion to enzyme immunoassays and, most recently, to point-of-care lateral flow devices. In general, these assays provide results faster and offer good analytical performance. These characteristics make immunodiagnostic assays good laboratory tools for outbreak investigations. The aim of this review is to describe the principles, advantages, limitations, and availability of immunodiagnostics assays in outbreak investigations, based on the experience of a reference laboratory.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAnimalsFungiHumansMycosesSerologic TestsAntibodyAntigenFungal metabolitesImmunodiagnosisMycosisOutbreaks

Identifiers

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.