ArticleMycopathologia2025
Clinical Utility of the T2Candida Panel: A Real-World Analysis of More Than 2000 Cases.
Article in Mycopathologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Quantitative Differences of Classic Methods, Fungal Biomarkers, and T2Candida for Assessing the Central Venous Catheter Origin of Candidemia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Analytical performance of species-targeted quantitative PCR for intra-abdominal candidiasis in critically ill patients: a proof-of-concept post hoc analysis from the pBDG2 multicenter study.Critical care (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInvasive candidiasis, including candidaemia, is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis is traditionally based on blood culture, which lacks sensitivity. Therefore, additional tools such as PCR-based diagnostic methods are increasingly used. The T2MR technology is based on polymerase chain reaction and detection of the PCR product involving magnetic resonance technology. In this study, we compare the T2Candida in a clinical routine setting to conventional blood culture in order to explore its usefulness, strengths and weaknesses in its daily application.
methodsThis retrospective analysis was performed at the Vienna University Hospital with clinical routine samples submitted between April 2021 and May 2024. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accordance were calculated with blood culture as reference method. Patients with a positive T2Candida result but a negative result in blood culture were assessed according to a clinical case definition. Based on direct detection in blood by alternative methods (e.g. blood culture, alternative PCR), 1-3-beta-D-Glucan, patient risk factors and detection of the same species in other sample materials, each result was categorised as "proven", "probable", "possible", "improbable" or "not assessable".
results2105 samples from 1447 unique patients were submitted for analysis during the study period. 94 samples were positive (4.5%) in the T2Candida, with 4 samples positive for more than one target. 26 out of these 94 (27.7%) were also positive in blood culture. 339 (16.1%) samples were invalid. The most frequent species detected was Candida albicans/tropicalis with 57 detections. Overall sensitivity of the T2Candida panel in our setting was 0.62 (95% CI 0.41-0.80) and specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97). Cases detected by the T2Candida panel were assessed as proven (n = 28), probable (n = 11), possible (n = 29), improbable (n = 15) and not assessable (n = 15). Median time-to-result was 3.9 h for the T2Candida compared to a median time-to-positivity of blood culture ranging from 22.7 to 42.0 h depending on the species.
conclusionsThe introduction of the T2Candida panel led to a substantial rise in patients diagnosed with invasive candidiasis. Combination of both the T2Candida panel and conventional blood culture led to the detection of more positive samples than each test alone.
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.