Comparative evaluation of two different methods of inoculum preparation for antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi
Open accessAbstract
Two different methods of inoculum preparation for susceptibility testing were analysed. The first method was adjustment of inoculum size by haemocytometer counting. The second method was spectrophotometric adjustment at 530 nm. The reliability of both methods was assessed by colony counting. The overall agreement between colony counting and haemocytometer counts was 93.6%, and the intraclass coefficient correlation was 0.71 (P < 0.05). Pearson's correlation index between colony counts and optical density values was -0.059 (P > 0.05). Optical densities ranged between 0.01 and 1.2, showing less reproducibility than expected by the NCCLS M 38-P standard. Haemocytometer counting is a more reliable method of inoculum preparation for antifungal susceptibility testing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Numerous studies have shown the importance of inoculum preparation by haemocytometer counting for reproducible and suitable preparation independent of the color and size of conidia.
“Numerous studies showed the importance of inoculum preparation by haemocytometer counting for reproducible and suitable preparation independent of the color and size of conidia [68], [73], [74].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [74]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review
Balouiri, M., Sadiki, M., & Ibnsouda, S. K. (2016) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005 · Cited by 7,264 · see citing works
Arendrup, M. C., Kahlmeter, G., Guinea, J., & Meletiadis, J. (2021) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.042 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Antifungal susceptibility testing in<i>Aspergillus</i>spp. according to EUCAST methodology
Lass-Flörl, C., Cuenca-Estrella, M., Denning, D. W., & Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L. (2006) · Medical Mycology · doi:10.1080/13693780600779401 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aberkane, A.
- Affiliations
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Aberkane, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-09-20
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 719-722
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2149053252
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
- Keywords
- inoculum preparation, antifungal susceptibility testing, filamentous fungi, colony counting, reproducibility
- MeSH terms
- Antifungal Agents, Fungi, Humans, Colony Count, Microbial, Drug Resistance, Fungal
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
