Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the E-test with the NCCLS M38-P Method for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Common and Emerging Pathogenic Filamentous Fungi

Open access
Espinel-Ingroff, Ana·2001·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) M38-P method describes standard parameters for testing the fungistatic antifungal activities (MICs) of established agents against filamentous fungi (molds). The present study evaluated the in vitro fungistatic activities of itraconazole and amphotericin B by the E-test and the NCCLS M38-P microdilution method against 186 common and emerging pathogenic molds (123 isolates of Aspergillus spp. [five species], 16 isolates of Fusarium spp. [two species], 4 Paecilomyces lilacinus isolates, 5 Rhizopus arrhizus isolates, 15 Scedosporium spp., 18 dematiaceous fungi, and 5 Trichoderma longibrachiatum isolates). The agreement between the methods for amphotericin B MICs ranged from 70% for Fusarium solani to ≥90% for most of the other species after the first reading; agreement was dependent on both the incubation time and the species being evaluated. Major discrepancies between the amphotericin B MICs determined by the E-test and the NCCLS M38-P method were demonstrated for three of the five species of Aspergillus tested and the two species of Fusarium tested. This discrepancy was more marked after 48 h of incubation; the geometric mean MICs determined by the E-test increased between 24 and 48 h from between 1.39 and 3.3 μg/ml to between 5.2 and >8 μg/ml for Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus fumigatus , and Aspergillus nidulans . The agreement between the itraconazole MICs determined by the E-test and the NCCLS M38-P method ranged from 83.3% for A. nidulans to ≥90% for all the other species tested; the overall agreement was higher (92.7%) than that for amphotericin B (87.9%). The agreement was less dependent on the incubation time. Clinical trials need to be conducted to establish the role of the results of either the E-test or the NCCLS M38-P method in vitro for molds with the two agents as predictors of clinical outcome.

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.39.4.1360-1367.2001

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Espinel-Ingroff, A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2001-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1360-1367
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2109156504
Cited by
258
References
3
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Comparison of the E-test with the NCCLS M38-P Method for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Common and Emerging Pathogenic Filamentous Fungi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.39.4.1360-1367.2001
The paper
Espinel-Ingroff, A. (2001). Comparison of the E-test with the NCCLS M38-P Method for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Common and Emerging Pathogenic Filamentous Fungi. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.39.4.1360-1367.2001

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.