ReviewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Commercial Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts: Strengths and Limitations as Predictors of Resistance.
Review in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brazilian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults and children.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesGuideline
- Global perspective on gaps in fungal diagnostics in low-resource settings: WHO landscape analysis and research priorities for invasive fungal diseases.The Lancet. Microbe · 2026Review
- Article
- Susceptibility patterns ofInfection prevention in practice · 2024Article
- Commercial Methods for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Saprophytic Molds: Can They Be Used to Detect Resistance?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Emergence of cryptic species and clades ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2023Article
- A first-in-class inhibitor of Hsp110 molecular chaperones of pathogenic fungi.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
- In Vitro Assessment of Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Biocontrol ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Antifungal susceptibility pattern ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Susceptibility testing can yield variable results because it is method (commercial or reference), agent, and species dependent. Therefore, in order for results to be clinically relevant, MICs (minimal inhibitory concentrations) or MECs (minimal effective concentrations) should help in selecting the best treatment agent in the clinical setting. This is accomplished by categorical endpoints, ideally, breakpoints (BPs) and/or ECVs/ECOFFs (epidemiological cutoff values). BPs and ECVs are available by the reference methods (CLSI [Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute] and EUCAST [European Committee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing]) for a variety of species/agent combinations. The lack of clinical data precludes establishment of BPs for susceptibility testing by the commercial methods and ECVs have only been calculated for the Etest and SYO assays. The goal of this review is to summarize the variety of commercial methods for antifungal susceptibility testing and the potential value of Etest and SYO ECVs for detecting mutants/non-wild type (NWT)
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.