Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35774069›Full record

ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022

Clinical utility of antifungal susceptibility testing.

Todd P McCarty, Paul M Luethy, John W Baddley, Peter G Pappas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Antifungal Activity ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. A Practical Guide to Antifungal Susceptibility Testing.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2023
    Article
  7. [Research advances on invasive fungal infections after burns].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023
    Review
  8. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Todd P McCartyDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Paul M LuethyDepartment of Pathology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John W BaddleyDepartment of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9111-625X
Peter G PappasDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive fungal diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, in particular affecting immunocompromised patients. Resistant organisms are of increasing importance, yet there are many notable differences in the ability to both perform and interpret antifungal susceptibility testing compared with bacteria. In this review, we will highlight the strengths and limitations of resistance data of pathogenic yeasts and moulds that may be used to guide treatment and predict clinical outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID35774069
PMCPMC9237445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.