ArticleMycopathologia2020
Comparative evaluation of E-test and CLSI methods for Itraconazole, Fluconazole and Ketoconazole susceptibilities of Microsporum canis strains.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A New Medium that Promotes In Vitro Mass Sporulation of Microsporum canis.Mycopathologia · 2026Article
- A Review of Antifungal Susceptibility Testing for Dermatophyte Fungi and It's Correlation with Previous Exposure and Clinical Responses.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of resistance to antifungal agents for dermatophytes is increasing, but most of the methods currently available to test the antifungal susceptibility of Microsporum canis still require standardization. The aims of this study were: (i) to evaluate the antifungal susceptibility of M. canis strains recovered from animals to ketoconazole (KTZ), fluconazole (FLZ) and itraconazole (ITZ) using a modified CLSI broth microdilution (CLSI M38-A2-BMD) and the E-test® protocols and (ii) to estimate the agreement between the methods. Tentative azole epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) were also proposed in order to interpret the results of in vitro susceptibility tests and to establish the agreement between the E-test and CLSI BMD methods. A total of forty clinical M. canis strains from animals with skin lesions were tested, and the essential (EA) and categorical agreement (CA) between the two methods were determined. KTZ displayed the lowest MIC values, while ITZ and FLZ the highest. The ECV for KTZ and ITZ were 4 μg/ml, while those of FLZ was 64 μg/ml. Based on ECVs, about 88% of M. canis strains were susceptible to all azoles being a cross-resistance with ITZ-FLZ registered for one strain. A total of five M. canis strains showed MIC > ECV for FLZ using CLSI, while one strain showed MIC > ECV for ITZ using both tests. KTZ, ITZ and FLZ showed EA ranging from 92.5 to 95%, for all azoles and CA > 97% except for FLZ (87.5%). The good CA between the E-test and the CLSI BMD provides evidence of the reliability of the former method to test the antifungal susceptibility of M. canis for ITZ and KTZ and not for FLZ.
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.