ArticleCurrent medical mycology2024
Evaluation of a newer (1, 3)-β-D-glucan chemiluminescent immunoassay for invasive candidiasis: A study from a tertiary care center.
Article in Current medical mycology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and prospects in diagnosis of major opportunistic fungal infections among HIV-positive population in south provinces of China and neighboring countries that are suffering high prevalence of AIDS.Biosafety and health · 2026Review
- First Isolation of a Multi-azole-Resistant Aspergillus fumigatus cyp51A TRMycopathologia · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Role of Serum Beta-D-glucan Testing in Safely Reducing Antifungal Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- An overview of rapid non-culture-based techniques in various clinical specimens for the laboratory diagnosis ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Invasive candidiasis (IC) in the hospitalized population is one of the leading causes of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Microbiological diagnosis of IC suffers due to poor sensitivity of blood culture and relative inaccessibility to more sensitive modalities. (1, 3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) is a cell wall polysaccharide found in a range of fungi. Various commercial assays are available based on various detection techniques. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the FungiXpert® Fungus BDG Detection Kit by Genobio Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (Tianjin, China), based on chemiluminescent method, for diagnosis of candidemia and deep-seated candidiasis. Materials and Methods: In total, 80 patients (34 males and 46 females) were included with a median age of 35 years old. In accordance with EORTC/MSGERC definitions, 39 patients had proven IC. The number of patients within the probable, possible, and no IC (taken as control) groups were 8, 4, and 29, respectively. Blood samples were collected for fungal blood culture and BDG assay. Results: After exclusion of cases with evidence of concurrent IFI other than IC, median serum BDG was 0.63 ng/ml for proven IC; while it was 0.04 ng/ml for NO IC. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 60.52%, 81.81%, 85.18%, and 54.54%, respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 3.32. While the assay performed best for Conclusion: The performance of the FungiXpert® Fungus BDG Detection Kit was acceptable for invasive candidiasis in the present resource-limited setup. The major advantages of this assay were the ease of performance in a semi-automated cartridge format, relatively lower cost per test, non-reliance on glucan-free procedures or instruments and minimal hands-on procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.