CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal Infections and Studies

Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Practical Aspects and Current Challenges

Open access
Rex, John H., Pfaller, Michael A., Walsh, Thomas J., Chaturvedi, Vishnu, Espinel-Ingroff, Ana, Ghannoum, Mahmoud A., Gosey, Linda L., Odds, Frank C. +3 more·2001·Clinical Microbiology Reviews
DOI 10.1128/cmr.14.4.643-658.2001PMC PMC88997
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Development of standardized antifungal susceptibility testing methods has been the focus of intensive research for the last 15 years. Reference methods for yeasts (NCCLS M27-A) and molds (M38-P) are now available. The development of these methods provides researchers not only with standardized methods for testing but also with an understanding of the variables that affect interlaboratory reproducibility. With this knowledge, we have now moved into the phase of (i) demonstrating the clinical value (or lack thereof) of standardized methods, (ii) developing modifications to these reference methods that address specific problems, and (iii) developing reliable commercial test kits. Clinically relevant testing is now available for selected fungi and drugs: Candida spp. against fluconazole, itraconazole, flucytosine, and (perhaps) amphotericin B; Cryptococcus neoformans against (perhaps) fluconazole and amphotericin B; and Aspergillus spp. against (perhaps) itraconazole. Expanding the range of useful testing procedures is the current focus of research in this area.

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/cmr.14.4.643-658.2001

Cites

220 of 220 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?

  • Data-driven interpretive breakpoints using the M27-A method are available for testing the susceptibility of Candida species to fluconazole, itraconazole, and flucytosine.

    “Data-driven interpretive breakpoints using this method are available for testing the susceptibility of Candida species to fluconazole, itraconazole, and flucytosine [28][29][30][31].”

    From Guidelines for Treatment of Candidiasis (2004) · cites this paper as [29]

  • Although MIC data for the newer compounds are available for all major Candida species, the interpretation of those MICs in relation to achievable blood levels is uncertain.

    “Although MIC data for these compounds are available for all major Candida species (table 3), the interpretation of those MICs in relation to achievable blood levels is uncertain [29].”

    From Guidelines for Treatment of Candidiasis (2004) · cites this paper as [29]

  • As many as 60% to 80% of neutropenic patients who are colonized with C. tropicalis eventually develop invasive infection with this species.

    “As many as 60% to 80% of neutropenic patients who are colonized with C. tropicalis eventually develop invasive infection with this species (118, 198, 256).”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis: a Persistent Public Health Problem (2007) · cites this paper as [256]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [133]National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of conidium-forming filamentous fungi. Proposed standard. NCCLS document M38-P. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  2. [134]National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Proposed standard M27-P. Villanova, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  3. [135]National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard NCCLS document M27-A. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  4. [136]National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts; tentative standard. NCCLS document M27-T. Wayne, Pa: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. [167]Powderly W G, Keath E J, Sokol-Anderson M, Robinson K, Kitz D, Little J R, Kobayashsi G. Amphotericin B-resistant Cryptococcus neoformans in a patient with AIDS. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 1992;1:314–316. [Google Scholar]
  6. [172]Qian Q, Sinkeldam I, Roberts G D. Comparison of a colorimetric microdilution method and the NCCLS macrodilution method for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. J Mycol Med. 1999;9:181–184. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rex, J. H., Pfaller, M. A., Walsh, T. J., Chaturvedi, V., Espinel-Ingroff, A., Ghannoum, M. A., Gosey, L. L., Odds, F. C., Rinaldi, M. G., Sheehan, D. J., & Warnock, D. W.
Affiliations
  • <!--label omitted: 1-->Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Center for the Study of Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas 770301;
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • New York State Department of Health (US)
  • <!--label omitted: 5-->Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 232985;
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
2001-10
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
643-658
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
DOI
10.1128/cmr.14.4.643-658.2001
PMC
PMC88997
OpenAlex
W2108249211
Cited by
444
References
220
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 21
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.asm.org/non-commercial-tdm-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
antifungal susceptibility testing, standardized protocols, interlaboratory reproducibility, Candida, Cryptococcus neoformans, Aspergillus, fluconazole, itraconazole, 5-fluorocytosine, amphotericin B, commercial test kits
MeSH terms
Animals, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Fungi, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycoses

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