Cited by 14Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityAntibiotic Use and ResistanceInfection Control in Healthcare

Antifungal susceptibility testing practices at acute care hospitals enrolled in the National Healthcare Safety Network, United States, 2011–2015.

Open access
Vallabhaneni, Snigdha, Sapiano, Mathew, Weiner, Lindsey M, Lockhart, Shawn R, Magill, Shelley·2017·Open Forum Infectious Diseases

Abstract

We assessed availability of antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) at nearly 4000 acute care hospitals enrolled in the National Healthcare Safety Network. In 2015, 95% offered any AFST, 28% offered AFST at their own laboratory or at an affiliated medical center, and 33% offered reflexive AFST. Availability of AFST improved from 2011 to 2015, but substantial gaps exist in the availability of AFST.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ofid/ofx175

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Availability of species-level identification and AFST, especially AFST, is limited in clinical laboratories.

    “However, availability of both types of testing, especially AFST, is limited in clinical laboratories (62).”

    From Population-Based Active Surveillance for Culture-Confirmed Candidemia — Four Sites, United States, 2012–2016 (2019) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Results and Discussion report limited access to AFST at a hospital’s own laboratory or an affiliated medical center, and limited reflexive AFST. They also report that 95.5% of surveyed hospitals offered AFST through some route, so the limitation concerns local and reflexive access rather than AFST availability overall. The paper does not establish that species-level identification is limited. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent analysis using National Healthcare Safety Network data found that reflexive AFST is lacking in approximately two-thirds of acute care hospitals.

    “A recent analysis using National Healthcare Safety Network data found that reflexive AFST is lacking in approximately two-thirds of acute care hospitals [14].”
  • The frequency of AFST performance and use in clinical decision-making might vary based on cost, lack of trained personnel, and reliance on off-site testing, which can delay results (about 3 days on-site vs 7 days off-site).

    “Although the capacity of laboratories in the United States to perform AFST has increased in recent years, the frequency of AFST performance and use in clinical decision-making might vary based on several factors, including cost, a lack of personnel trained in mycology, and reliance on off-site testing, which can substantially delay results (from ~3 days with on-site testing versus ~7 days for off”
  • Because it generally takes at least 2-4 days after blood culture collection to detect and identify Candida species, and because access to AFST may be limited or delayed, clinicians usually select initial antifungal treatment based on local species epidemiology, antifungal resistance patterns, and individual patient factors.

    “Because it generally takes at least 2–4 days after blood culture collection to detect and identify Candida species, and because access to AFST may be limited or delayed, clinicians usually select initial antifungal treatment based on local species epidemiology, antifungal resistance patterns, and individual patient factors [13–16].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vallabhaneni, S., Sapiano, M., Weiner, L. M., Lockhart, S. R., & Magill, S.
Affiliations
  • Mycotic Diseases Branch and
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Vallabhaneni, Snigdha
Venue
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Published
2017
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
ofx175-ofx175
ISSN
2328-8957 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2569696447
Cited by
14
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Open Forum Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
antifungal susceptibility testing, acute care hospitals, National Healthcare Safety Network, reflex testing, healthcare-associated fungal infections

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