ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology1999
Evaluation of the fungitest kit by using strains from human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: study of azole drug susceptibility.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Oral Candida isolates colonizing or infecting human immunodeficiency virus-infected and healthy persons in Mexico.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Antifungal susceptibility testing: practical aspects and current challenges.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2001Review
- Trends in antifungal susceptibility among Candida sp. Urinary isolates from 1994 and 1998.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2000Article
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
One hundred eighteen Candida clinical isolates from human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients were tested for their susceptibilities to fluconazole and itraconazole by Fungitest and the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards MIC method. Fungitest results depended on both yeast species and antifungal agents. This test is able to detect sensitive strains (97% agreement with results of the MIC method in tests with fluconazole and 84% agreement in tests with itraconazole) but has a poor capacity to detect resistant strains (26% agreement in tests with fluconazole and 5% agreement in tests with itraconazole).
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.