Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40487498›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of dermatology

Comparative Analysis of

Sudeshna Das, Deepti Rawat, Ravinder Kaur, Vibhu Mendiratta, Pradeep K Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Sudeshna DasFrom the Department of Microbiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India.
Deepti RawatFrom the Department of Microbiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India.
Ravinder KaurFrom the Department of Microbiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India.
Vibhu MendirattaDepartment of Dermatology, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India.
Pradeep K SinghDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The currently reported prevalence of dermatophytosis (superficial mycoses) in India ranges from 6.09%-61.5%. Due to the rising cases of treatment failure, chronic recalcitrant disease, and frequent relapses, standardization of antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes has become important. Aims and Objectives: To determine the Materials and Methods: In total, 236 consecutive patients who were clinically suspected of suffering from dermatophytosis were included in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Nails, hair clippings, and skin scrapings were tested by the KOH mount and cultured on Sabouraud's agar medium (incubated at 25°C and 37°C) and dermatophyte test media. The dermatophytes isolated were identified based on the morphology of the colony growth as observed in the lacto phenol cotton blue (LPCB) mount, temperature tolerance, urease production, and Results: Conclusion: The present study showcases the MIC values of eight anti-fungal drugs used for the treatment of different species of dermatophytes. It was observed that the commonly used antifungals such as fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine showed high MIC values compared to newer drugs such as luliconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole. More studies based on species distribution and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) should be performed to understand the changing epidemiology of dermatophytosis.

Indexed as

Antifungal susceptibility testdermatophytosisluliconazoleminimum inhibitory concentrationtrichophyton

Identifiers

PMID40487498
PMCPMC12139623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.