Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

In Vitro Activities of New and Conventional Antifungal Agents against Clinical Scedosporium Isolates

Open access
Meletiadis, Joseph, Meis, Jacques F. G. M., Mouton, Johan W., Rodriquez-Tudela, Juan Luis, Donnelly, J. Peter, Verweij, Paul E., the EUROFUNG Network·2002·Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Abstract

The susceptibilities of 13 clinical isolates of Scedosporium apiospermum and 55 clinical isolates of S. prolificans to new and conventional drugs belonging to three different classes of antifungal agents, the azoles (miconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, UR-9825, posaconazole), the polyenes (amphotericin B, nystatin and liposomal nystatin), and allylamines (terbinafine), were studied by use of proposed standard M38-P of NCCLS. Low growth-inhibitory antifungal activities were found in vitro for most of the drugs tested against S. prolificans isolates, with the MICs at which 90% of isolates are inhibited (MIC 90 s) being >8 μg/ml; the MIC 90 s of voriconazole and UR-9825, however, were 4 μg/ml.S. apiospermum isolates were more susceptible in vitro, with the highest activity exhibited by voriconazole (MIC 90 s, 0.5 μg/ml), followed by miconazole (MIC 90 s, 1 μg/ml), UR-9825 and posaconazole (MIC 90 s, 2 μg/ml), and itraconazole (MIC 90 s, 4 μg/ml). The MICs of terbinafine, amphotericin B, and the two formulations of nystatin (for which no statistically significant differences in antifungal activities were found for the two species) for S. apiospermum isolates were high. Cross-resistance was observed among all the azoles except posaconazole and among all the polyenes except the lipid formulation. A distribution analysis was performed with the MICs of each drug and for each species. Bimodal and skewed MIC distributions were obtained, and cutoffs indicating the borders of different MIC subpopulations of the distributions were determined on the basis of the normal plot technique. These cutoffs were in many cases reproducible between 48 and 72 h.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aac.46.1.62-68.2002

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Meletiadis, J., Meis, J. F. G. M., Mouton, J. W., Rodriquez-Tudela, J. L., Donnelly, J. P., Verweij, P. E., & the EUROFUNG Network
Venue
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Published
2002-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
62-68
ISSN
  • 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6596
OpenAlex
W2128483390
Cited by
233
References
0
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: In Vitro Activities of New and Conventional Antifungal Agents against Clinical Scedosporium Isolates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.46.1.62-68.2002
The paper
Meletiadis, J., Meis, J. F. G. M., Mouton, J. W., Rodriquez-Tudela, J. L., Donnelly, J. P., Verweij, P. E., & the EUROFUNG Network. (2002). In Vitro Activities of New and Conventional Antifungal Agents against Clinical Scedosporium Isolates. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.46.1.62-68.2002

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.