Cited by 484Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Progress in Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida spp. by Use of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Broth Microdilution Methods, 2010 to 2012

Open access
Pfaller, M. A., Diekema, D. J.·2012·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida has been standardized and refined and now may play a useful role in managing Candida infections. Important new developments include validation of 24-h reading times for all antifungal agents and the establishment of species-specific epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) for the systemically active antifungal agents and both common and uncommon species of Candida . The clinical breakpoints (CBPs) for fluconazole, voriconazole, and the echinocandins have been revised to provide species-specific interpretive criteria for the six most common species. The revised CBPs not only are predictive of clinical outcome but also provide a more sensitive means of identifying those strains with acquired or mutational resistance mechanisms. This brief review serves as an update on the new developments in the antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida spp. using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) methods.

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/jcm.00937-12

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. PfallerMA DiekemaDJ. 2007. Azole antifungal drug cross-resistance: mechanisms, epidemiology, and clinical significance. J. Invasive Fungal Infect. 1:74–92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 484

Metadata

Authors
Pfaller, M. A., & Diekema, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2012-09
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
2846-2856
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2120299440
Cited by
484
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Eisai
  • Astellas Pharma
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Keywords
Candida, antifungal susceptibility testing, broth microdilution, epidemiological cut-off values, clinical breakpoints, fluconazole, voriconazole, echinocandins, antifungal resistance, Candida species, CLSI guidelines
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Candida, Candidiasis, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests

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