Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of Etest for Direct Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts in Positive Blood Cultures

Open access
Chang, Hsein Chang, Chang, Jui Jung, Chan, Shih Huang, Huang, Ay Huey, Wu, Tsu Lan, Lin, Miao Chu, Chang, Tsung Chain·2001·Journal of Clinical Microbiology
DOI 10.1128/jcm.39.4.1328-1333.2001PMC PMC87934
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The performance of the Etest (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden) for direct antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts in positive blood cultures was compared with that of the macrodilution method for determining the MICs of five antifungal agents. Culture broths with blood from bottles positive for yeasts were inoculated directly onto plates for susceptibility testing with the Etest, and the MICs were read after 24 and 48 h of incubation. A total of 141 positive blood cultures (72 cultures of Candida albicans , 31 of Candida tropicalis , 14 of Candida glabrata , 11 of Candida parapsilosis , 3 of Candida krusei , and 3 of Cryptococcus neoformans , 4 miscellaneous yeast species, and 3 mixed cultures) were tested, and the rates of MIC agreement (±1 log 2 dilution) between the direct Etest (at 24 and 48 h, respectively) and macrodilution methods were as follows: amphotericin B, 81.8 and 93.5%; flucytosine, 84.8 and 87.7%; fluconazole, 89.4 and 85.5%; itraconazole, 69.7 and 63.8%; ketoconazole, 87.9 and 79.0%. By a large-sample t test, the difference in log 2 dilution between the direct Etest and the macrodilution method was found to be small ( P < 0.05). The lone exceptions were ketoconazole at 48 h of incubation and itraconazole at both 24 and 48 h of incubation ( P > 0.05). By Tukey's multiple comparisons, the difference between the direct Etest (48 h) and reference methods among different species was found to be less than 1 log 2 dilution. When the MICs were translated into interpretive susceptibility, the minor errors caused by the direct Etest (at 24 and 48 h, respectively) were as follows: flucytosine, 2.3 and 1.4%; fluconazole, 3.0 and 3.6%; itraconazole, 21.2 and 21.3%. Itraconazole also produced an additional 3.0 and 3.6% major errors as determined by the direct Etest at 24 and 48 h, respectively. It was concluded that, except for itraconazole, the Etest method was feasible for direct susceptibility testing of blood cultures positive for yeasts. The method is simple, and the results could be read between 24 and 48 h after direct inoculation, whenever the inhibition zones were discernible.

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.39.4.1328-1333.2001

Cites

36 of 36 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.2307/30141234 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Montgomery D. C. Design and analysis of experiments 2nd ed. 1984 43 78 John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York N.Y

Cited by

See all 48

Metadata

Authors
Chang, H. C., Chang, J. J., Chan, S. H., Huang, A. H., Wu, T. L., Lin, M. C., & Chang, T. C.
Affiliations
  • <!--label omitted: 1-->Institute of Medical Engineering,1
  • <!--label omitted: 2-->Department of Statistics,2 and
  • National Cheng Kung University Hospital (TW)
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
  • <!--label omitted: 5-->Department of Medical Technology, College of Medicine,5
ORCID
Lin, Miao Chu
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
2001-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1328-1333
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
DOI
10.1128/jcm.39.4.1328-1333.2001
PMC
PMC87934
OpenAlex
W2000611358
Cited by
48
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.asm.org/non-commercial-tdm-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cheng Kung University
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
E-test, antifungal susceptibility testing, yeast, positive blood cultures, Candida, Cryptococcus neoformans, minimum inhibitory concentration, amphotericin B, 5-fluorocytosine, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, Candida albicans
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Blood, Candida, Cryptococcus neoformans, Culture Media, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycoses, Trichosporon, Yeasts

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

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.