Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Collaborative comparison of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests

Open access
Espinel-Ingroff, A, Kish, C W, Kerkering, T M, Fromtling, R A, Bartizal, K, Galgiani, J N, Villareal, K, Pfaller, M A, Gerarden, T, Rinaldi, M G·1992·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

A collaborative comparison of macro- and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests was performed in five laboratories. MICs of amphotericin B, fluconazole, flucytosine, and ketoconazole were determined in all five centers against 95 coded isolates of Candida spp., Cryptococcus neoformans, and Torulopsis glabrata. A standard protocol with the following National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing recommendations was used: an inoculum standardized by spectrophotometer, buffered (RPMI 1640) medium (pH 7.0), incubation at 35 degrees C, and an additive drug dilution procedure. Two inoculum sizes were tested (1 x 10(4) to 5 x 10(3) to 2.5 x 10(3) CFU/ml) and three scoring criteria were evaluated for MIC endpoint determinations, which were scored as 0 (optically clear), < or = 1 (slightly hazy turbidity), and < or = 2 (prominent decrease in turbidity compared with that of the growth control). Overall intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility was optimal with the low-density inoculum, the second-day readings, and MICs scored as either 1 or 2. The microdilution MICs demonstrated interlaboratory agreement with most of the four drugs higher than or similar to that of the macrodilution MICs. In general, there was good interlaboratory agreement with amphotericin B, fluconazole, and flucytosine; ketoconazole gave more variable results.

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.30.12.3138-3145.1992

Cites

1 of 1 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

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 243

Metadata

Authors
Espinel-Ingroff, A., Kish, C. W., Kerkering, T. M., Fromtling, R. A., Bartizal, K., Galgiani, J. N., Villareal, K., Pfaller, M. A., Gerarden, T., & Rinaldi, M. G.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1992-12
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
3138-3145
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2135770392
Cited by
243
References
1
FWCI
20.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Collaborative comparison of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.30.12.3138-3145.1992
The paper
Espinel-Ingroff, A., Kish, C. W., Kerkering, T. M., Fromtling, R. A., Bartizal, K., Galgiani, J. N., Villareal, K., Pfaller, M. A., Gerarden, T., & Rinaldi, M. G. (1992). Collaborative comparison of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.30.12.3138-3145.1992

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.