Cited by 228Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal and yeast genetics research

Multicenter evaluation of proposed standardized procedure for antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi

Open access
Espinel-Ingroff, A, Bartlett, M, Bowden, R, Chin, N X, Cooper, C, Fothergill, A, McGinnis, M R, Menezes, P +11 more·1997·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

A multicenter study was conducted to expand the generation and analysis of data that supports the proposal of a reference method for the antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi. Broth microdilution MICs of amphotericin B and itraconazole were determined in 11 centers against 30 coded duplicate pairs of Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., Pseudallescheria boydii, and Rhizopus arrhizus. The effect of inoculum density (approximately 10(3) and 10(4) CFU/ml), incubation time (24, 48, and 72 h), and procedure of MIC determination (conventional and colorimetric [Alamar Blue] evaluation of growth inhibition) on intra- and interlaboratory agreement was analyzed. Based on intra- (97 to 100%) and interlaboratory (94 to 95%) agreement for both drugs, the overall optimal testing conditions identified were determination of colorimetric MICs after 48 to 72 h of incubation with an inoculum density of approximately 10(4) CFU/ml. These testing conditions are proposed as guidelines for a reference broth microdilution method.

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.35.1.139-143.1997

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • For the five molds and the yeast isolate, >99% of the inocula were within the target ranges (0.4 × 10^6 to 5 × 10^6 CFU/ml for molds and 1 × 10^6 to 5 × 10^6 CFU/ml for C. krusei).

    “for the five molds and the yeast isolate, >99% of the inocula were within the target ranges (0.4 × 106 to 5 × 106 CFU/ml [molds] and 1 × 106 to 5 × 106 CFU/ml[C. krusei]) or similar reproducibility as in previous collaborative studies (92 to 95%) (1, 2, 7, 8).”

    From Quality Control Guidelines for Amphotericin B, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole Disk Diffusion Susceptibility Tests with Nonsupplemented Mueller-Hinton Agar (CLSI M51-A Document) for Nondermatophyte Filamentous Fungi (2011) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Results (Table 1) report percentages within the target inoculum range of 87% to 100% across six molds, not >99% for five molds and a yeast isolate. Candida krusei appears in Materials and Methods as a quality-control isolate, but the cited Results do not report a corresponding yeast inoculum percentage. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. [8]8. Espinel-Ingroff, A., and M. A. Pfaller. 1995. Antifungal agents and susceptibility testing, p. 1405-1421. In P. K. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 6th ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Espinel-Ingroff, A., Bartlett, M., Bowden, R., Chin, N. X., Cooper, C., Fothergill, A., McGinnis, M. R., Menezes, P., Messer, S. A., Nelson, P. W., Odds, F. C., Pasarell, L., Peter, J., Pfaller, M. A., Rex, J. H., Rinaldi, M. G., Shankland, G. S., Walsh, T. J., & Weitzman, I.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1997-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
139-143
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2132463351
Cited by
228
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
19.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
antifungal susceptibility testing, filamentous fungi, reference method, broth microdilution, minimum inhibitory concentration, amphotericin B, itraconazole, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Pseudallescheria boydii, Rhizopus oryzae, interlaboratory agreement, inoculum size, incubation time, Alamar Blue
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Fungi, 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