Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34778489›Full record

ReviewOpen forum infectious diseases2021

Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: A Primer for Clinicians.

Nathan P Wiederhold

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Features and Outcomes of InvasiveJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Establishment of epidemiological cutoff values forJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Analysis of Antifungal Drug Resistance AmongInfection and drug resistance · 2025
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nathan P WiederholdFungus Testing Laboratory, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2225-5122
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians treating patients with fungal infections may turn to susceptibility testing to obtain information regarding the activity of different antifungals against a specific fungus that has been cultured. These results may then be used to make decisions regarding a patient's therapy. However, for many fungal species that are capable of causing invasive infections, clinical breakpoints have not been established. Thus, interpretations of susceptible or resistant cannot be provided by clinical laboratories, and this is especially true for many molds capable of causing severe mycoses. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of susceptibility testing for clinicians, including the methods used to perform these assays, their limitations, how clinical breakpoints are established, and how the results may be put into context in the absence of interpretive criteria. Examples of when susceptibility testing is not warranted are also provided.

Indexed as

antifungalclinical breakpointsusceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID34778489
PMCPMC8579947
OpenAlexW3200588778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.