Cited by 48Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFungal Infections and Studies

Influence of incubation time, inoculum size, and glucose concentrations on spectrophotometric endpoint determinations for amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole

Open access
Nguyen, M. Hong, Yu, Christine Y.·1999·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

We addressed the influence of the incubation time (24 h versus 48 h), starting inoculum size (standard inoculum size, approximately 10(3) CFU/ml, versus large inoculum size, approximately 10(4) CFU/ml), and supplementation with 2% glucose of RPMI 1640 medium on the spectrophotometric determination of the MICs of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and itraconazole. We compared the MICs determined spectrophotometrically with those determined by the standard broth macrodilution method (National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards approved guideline M27-A). The agreement between the results of the spectrophotometric and standard methods for amphotericin B testing was 100%; this agreement was independent of the inoculum size and incubation time. On the other hand, the agreement for the results for fluconazole testing and itraconazole testing was dependent on the inoculum size and incubation time. With large inoculum size, excellent agreement can be achieved at 24 h. With standard inoculum size, acceptable agreement can be achieved only at 48 h. In contrast to previous observations, the addition of 2% glucose did not have any significant impact on the growth density at 24 h, nor did it improve the agreement with the standard method. Furthermore, supplemental glucose might falsely elevate the MIC at 48 h.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.37.1.141-145.1999

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Inoculum size can affect susceptibility results.

    “It is well recognized that the inoculum size can affect susceptibility results [130,144,145,146,147].”

    From Candida glabrata Biofilms: How Far Have We Come? (2017) · cites this paper as [144]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, M. H., & Yu, C. Y.
Affiliations
University of Florida Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1999-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
141-145
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2968724175
Cited by
47
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.97
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
Keywords
minimum inhibitory concentration, amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, incubation time, inoculum size, glucose supplementation, RPMI 1640, broth macrodilution, antifungal susceptibility testing, Candida
MeSH terms
Amphotericin B, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Culture Media, Glucose, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Spectrophotometry, Time Factors, Fluconazole, Itraconazole

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