Interlaboratory Evaluation of Hematocytometer Method of Inoculum Preparation for Testing Antifungal Susceptibilities of Filamentous Fungi
Open accessAbstract
A three-laboratory study was performed to evaluate conidium counting in a hematocytometer as a technique of inoculum preparation for susceptibility testing of Aspergillus spp. In addition, inocula were quantified by colony counting and optical density determination. The agreement and correlation coefficient between conidium and colony quantifications were 89.2% and 0.73 ( P < 0.01). Correlations with optical density determination were not significant.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review (2016) · cites this paper as [68]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 79
- Authors
- Rodriguez-Tudela, J. L., Chryssanthou, E., Petrikkou, E., Mosquera, J., Denning, D. W., & Cuenca-Estrella, M.
- Affiliations
- Unidad de Micología, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain
- Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 5236-5237
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- PMC
- PMC262490
- OpenAlex
- W2167375423
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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
- inoculum preparation, Aspergillus, antifungal susceptibility testing, filamentous fungi, colony counting, optical density, interlaboratory agreement
- MeSH terms
- Antifungal Agents, Aspergillus, Fungi, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycology, Spectrophotometry
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
