ArticleScientific reports2025
Detection of clinically relevant Candida species from positive blood cultures using a novel sample-to-answer molecular assay.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- The future of fungal diagnostics: What's next in laboratory testing for invasive fungal infection?Medical mycology · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluating the Prognostic Value of the EQUAL Candida Score and a Nomogram-Based Approach for Candidaemia-Related Mortality.Mycoses · 2025Article
- Candidemia: An Update on Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Susceptibility, and Treatment.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Application of microfluidic chip-based multiplex PCR in diagnosing reproductive tract pathogens among patients with premature rupture of membranes.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the newly developed MoiM Dx Candida 9-plex (MoiM) assay for the detection of Candida species from positive blood cultures and compared the results with those obtained from the BIOFIRE Blood Culture Identification 2 (BCID2) Panel. This study included 39 candidaemia cases and 40 cases of non-Candida bloodstream infections as negative controls. Routine culture results, which were identified via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time‒of‒flight mass spectrometry (MALDI‒TOF MS), were used as the reference standard for analysis. The performance of the MoiM assay was evaluated using positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA). The MoiM assay demonstrated a PPA of 97.1% and an NPA of 100% for detecting the five most common Candida species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, and C. krusei) in candidaemia cases. In comparison, the BCID2 panel yielded a PPA of 67.6% and an NPA of 100.0% (P = 0.001). Additionally, the MoiM assay correctly identified C. guilliermondii and C. lusitaniae, not covered by the BCID2 panel. Among the 10 discrepant results between the two assays, all 10 cases were incompletely identified by the BCID2 panel, but the results from the MoiM assay were identical to the culture results. The MoiM assay was designed as an automated sample-to-answer molecular assay for the detection of Candida species from positive blood cultures. Our study revealed that this assay shows good overall agreement with routine culture and is comparable to the BCID2 panel.
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.