ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2025
Sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry for the diagnosis of filamentous fungal infections.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMany fungal species share overlapping morphologic features in tissue sections, preventing reliable identification and optimal treatment. We sought to determine whether immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a panel of commercially available antibodies could effectively distinguish between fungi commonly encountered in anatomic pathology specimens.
methodsAnti-Aspergillus, anti-Rhizopus, and anti-Candida IHC was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections from 24 cases with fungal infections identified by culture or sequencing (including 4 polyfungal infections).
resultsAnti-Aspergillus IHC was positive in 6 of 6 Aspergillus and focally in 1 of 4 Candida species infections and negative in all cases of Fusarium, Scedosporium, Rhizopus, and Mucor species, yielding overall sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95%. Anti-Rhizopus IHC was positive in 4 of 4 Rhizopus and 1 of 3 Mucor species infections and negative in all other cases, with a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 100%. Anti-Candida IHC was positive in 4 of 4 Candida species infections and showed some cross-reactivity in all other cases, resulting in 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity.
conclusionsAnti-Aspergillus IHC was highly sensitive and specific in its ability to distinguish Aspergillus from other similar-appearing hyaline molds, including Fusarium and Scedosporium species. Anti-Rhizopus IHC was moderately sensitive and highly specific, while anti-Candida IHC was highly sensitive but had minimal specificity.
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.