ArticleMycoses2025
Performance Evaluation of Five Real-Time PCR Assays for the Detection of Candida auris DNA.
Article in Mycoses, 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
- Fluconazole Disk Diffusion on CHROMagar Candida Plus for Differentiation BetweenJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emergence and Comparative Analysis ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Candidozyma auris in The Netherlands: No Evidence of Nosocomial Transmission Supported by Effective Infection Control Policies.Mycopathologia · 2026Article
- Development of a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) for the screening of Candida auris.PloS one · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of two laboratory-developed assays (LDAs) and three commercially available real-time PCR assays for the detection of Candida auris. The analytical sensitivity, specificity and limit of detection (LOD) of each assay were assessed, alongside their clinical sensitivity in identifying C. auris colonisation.
methodsTen C. auris strains representing five clades, as well as genetically related yeasts, common yeast species, and dermatophytes, were used to assess assay sensitivity and cross reactivity. Clinical and environmental samples were collected from patients during an outbreak and tested with three commercial PCR assays (AurisID, Fungiplex, FungiXpert) and two LDAs (CDC LDA, EMC LDA). LOD was determined using Probit analysis. Diagnostic sensitivity was evaluated by comparing the detection rate of each individual assay to the total detection rate of all assays combined.
resultsThe EMC LDA exhibited the highest analytical sensitivity, with a LOD of 8 conidia/reaction, followed by CDC LDA (16 conidia/reaction), AurisID and FungiXpert (19 conidia/reaction), and Fungiplex (596 conidia/reaction). Specificity testing revealed cross-reactivity in the CDC LDA and AurisID assays with C. pseudohaemulonii at high conidia levels, while no cross-reactivity was observed in the other assays. EMC LDA showed the highest clinical sensitivity (100%), whereas Fungiplex had the lowest positivity rate (71%). No false positives were observed in negative control swabs for any assay.
conclusionsReal-time PCR is a crucial tool for the rapid and sensitive detection of C. auris , especially in clinical settings where timely identification is essential for effective patient management and infection control. Numerous PCR assays are available for this purpose; however, our study demonstrates that the sensitivity of these assays can vary significantly. The observed differences underscore the importance of establishing international reference standards and proficiency panels to enhance the accuracy and comparability of assay performance across different studies and laboratories.
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.