ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
False-positive beta-glucan test due to beta-glucan component in sterile gauze during treatment of fungal sepsis: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The (1,3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) assay, commonly referred to as the G test, is influenced by numerous factors and is prone to false-positive and false-negative results, particularly false positives, which pose significant challenges for clinical diagnosis and treatment of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). Case presentation: We report a patient with a non-healing wound and enterocutaneous fistula following abdominal wall hernia surgery, who responded effectively to antifungal therapy for fungal sepsis. Despite persistently negative blood cultures, the (1,3)-β-D-glucan (G-test) remained positive for three consecutive months. Through systematic exclusion of confounding factors, including antibiotics, bacterial infections, blood products, fungal preparations, and specimen-related issues, the persistent elevation in G test results was ultimately attributed to contamination by medical sterile gauze. The patient eventually recovered from fungal sepsis and was discharged. Conclusion: When microbiological evidence for infection is insufficient and clinical symptoms improve with a clear therapeutic response, yet the G test remains persistently positive at high levels over an extended period, careful analysis of potential causes is essential. The G test result should not be blindly used as an indication for antifungal therapy. Medical sterile gauze, cotton swabs, and cotton balls contain high concentrations of BDG, which may lead to false-positive results and should be carefully considered during differential diagnosis.
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.