ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2026
Prospective multicenter evaluation of an easy-to-use DNA microarray for the detection of dermatophytes in clinical samples compared with conventional mycological methods.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular methods are increasingly used for the diagnosis of superficial fungal infections, providing rapid and sensitive detection of dermatophytes. This multicenter study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the DendrisKIT (DP assay), an automated DNA microarray for dermatophyte detection, compared with conventional mycological methods. In total, 490 clinical samples from four French centers were analyzed using the DP assay, direct examination (DE), and fungal culture. After excluding invalid results, 487 samples (316 nail samples, 145 skin scrapings, 26 scalp samples) were included. Discrepant results were further investigated using an alternative commercial molecular assay. The DP assay detected dermatophytes in 367/487 samples (75.4%), outperforming DE (67.4%) and culture (63.4%). Compared with culture, the DP assay showed that the sensitivity to culture was 96.4% [94.3-98.5], while the specificity was 61.2% [54.0-68.4], reflecting additional detections rather than false positives. Among culture-negative/DP assay-positive samples, 58 were considered probable true positives, leading to an adjusted specificity of 90.8% [95%CI: 85.6-96.0]. Eleven culture-positive/DP-negative cases were observed, likely due to heterogeneous fungal distribution within the sample. The highest detection rates were achieved by combining the DP assay with DE or culture (80.9% and 77.6%, respectively). The DP assay is a reliable, easy-to-use, rapid, and high-throughput method for dermatophyte detection. When used with conventional mycological methods, it improves diagnostic yield and reduces turnaround time, but culture remains essential for identifying rare fungi causing superficial fungal infections but not included in the panel, such as non-dermatophyte molds.IMPORTANCECommercial multiplex assays improve dermatophyte detection in clinical samples, but their use is limited by poor standardization and accreditation constraints. DNA microarray technology expands pathogen detection and offers a promising alternative to multiplex real-time PCR. Here, we evaluated the DendrisKIT DP DNA microarray in a large multicenter cohort, showing improved diagnostic yield and shorter turnaround times, while culture remains essential for detecting rare fungi, including non-dermatophyte molds not covered by the panel.
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.