The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Etest, chequerboard dilution and time-kill studies for the detection of synergy or antagonism between antifungal agents tested against Candida species
Abstract
Currently, there is considerable debate regarding the best in vitro method for testing antifungal combinations against Candida spp. In this study, we compared the results obtained by chequerboard dilution, time-kill studies and Etest for several antifungal combinations against Candida spp. Three Candida albicans isolates (fluconazole MICs of 1.0, 32 and >256 mg/L) and three non-albicans Candida isolates (C. glabrata, C. tropicalis and C. krusei) were tested in RPMI 1640 medium. By chequerboard testing, the majority of antifungal combinations were found to be indifferent. Notably, antagonism was identified by time-kill studies and by Etest for combinations of amphotericin B-fluconazole, but it was not detected by the chequerboard method. Pre-exposure of isolates to fluconazole did not affect results of the Etest or chequerboard method, but it did increase the frequency of antagonism noted by time-kill methods. This study indicates that chequerboard dilution testing in RPMI medium may not reliably detect the attenuation of amphotericin B activity. Of the three methods, Etest was the simplest to use and yielded reproducible results for testing antifungal combinations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rex, J. H., Pfaller, M. A., Galgiani, J. N., Bartlett, M. S., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Ghannoum, M. A., Lancaster, M., Odds, F. C., Rinaldi, M. G., Walsh, T. J., et al. (1997) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/clinids/24.2.235 · Cited by 855
White, R. L., Burgess, D. S., Manduru, M., & Bosso, J. A. (1996) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.40.8.1914 · Cited by 721
Klepser, M. E., Ernst, E. J., Lewis, R. E., Ernst, M. E., & Pfaller, M. A. (1998) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.42.5.1207 · Cited by 338
Self-citation
Cited by
Combination antifungal therapy
Johnson, M. D., MacDougall, C., Ostrosky-Zeichner, L., Perfect, J. R., & Rex, J. H. (2004) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.48.3.693-715.2004 · Cited by 541
Terpene Derivatives as a Potential Agent against Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Pathogens
Mahizan, N. A., Yang, S.-K., Moo, C.-L., Song, A. A.-L., Chong, C.-M., Chong, C.-W., Abushelaibi, A., Lim, S.-H. E., & Lai, K.-S. (2019) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules24142631 · Cited by 473
When Does 2 Plus 2 Equal 5? A Review of Antimicrobial Synergy Testing
Doern, C. D. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01121-14 · Cited by 431
van Vuuren, S., & Viljoen, A. (2011) · Planta Medica · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1250736 · Cited by 367
Pfaller, M. A., Sheehan, D. J., & Rex, J. H. (2004) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.17.2.268-280.2004 · Cited by 352
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, R. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-02-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 345-351
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2133079687
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Etest, chequerboard dilution and time-kill studies for the detection of synergy or antagonism between antifungal agents tested against Candida species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/49.2.345
- The paper
- Lewis, R. E. (2002). Comparison of Etest, chequerboard dilution and time-kill studies for the detection of synergy or antagonism between antifungal agents tested against Candida species. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/49.2.345
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
