Cited by 134Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Infections and StudiesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Inoculum Standardization for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Filamentous Fungi Pathogenic for Humans

Open access
Petrikkou, Eva, Rodrı́guez-Tudela, Juan L., Cuenca-Estrella, Manuel, Gómez, Alicia, Molleja, Ana, Mellado, Emilia·2001·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Two methods of inoculum preparation for filamentous fungi were compared: counting with a hematocytometer and spectrophotometric adjustment. One hundred eighty-two filamentous fungi pathogenic for humans were used. Colony counts were done for all inoculum preparations. The agreement between the hematocytometer counts and the colony counts (CFU per milliliter) was 97.2%. The reproducibility between the hematocytometer counts and the colony counts by means of an intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.70. Pearson's correlation index for hematocytometer counts versus colony counts was 0.56, whereas that for optical density versus colony counts was 0.008. Both methods can be used for inoculum size adjustment. However, the use of the spectrophotometric method requires that each species be standardized separately.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.39.4.1345-1347.2001

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Numerous studies have shown the importance of inoculum preparation by haemocytometer counting for reproducible and suitable preparation independent of the color and size of conidia.

    “Numerous studies showed the importance of inoculum preparation by haemocytometer counting for reproducible and suitable preparation independent of the color and size of conidia [68], [73], [74].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrikkou, E., Rodrı́guez-Tudela, J. L., Cuenca-Estrella, M., Gómez, A., Molleja, A., & Mellado, E.
Affiliations
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
  • <!--label omitted: 1-->Servicio de Micologia, Centro Nacional de Microbiologia, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, 28220 Majadahonda, Spain
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2001-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1345-1347
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2098804733
Cited by
134
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Instituto de Salud Carlos III
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
inoculum standardization, antifungal susceptibility testing, filamentous fungi, human pathogenic fungi, colony count, reproducibility
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Aspergillus, Mitosporic Fungi, Fusarium, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycoses, Spectrophotometry, Colony Count, Microbial, Scedosporium

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