ArticleMycoses2026
Comparison of DermaGenius and In-House qPCR Methods for Detection of Recalcitrant Dermatophyte Infections: A Practical Approach for Dermatologists and Mycologists.
Article in Mycoses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing MALDI-TOF MS for routine dermatophyte identification, including Trichophyton indotineae.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic and recalcitrant dermatophytosis has become increasingly problematic in dermatology practice, largely due to emerging antifungal resistance, affecting not only terbinafine but also azoles. Among the causative agents, Trichophyton indotineae has emerged as a key pathogen associated with treatment failure, extensive disease, and frequent relapse, even in immunocompetent patients.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare two rapid molecular diagnostic approaches: A commercial multiplex qPCR assay (DermaGenius Resistance Multiplex PCR, DermaGenius RMP) and a T. indotineae-specific in-house qPCR assay, focusing on their practical value for early detection of recalcitrant dermatophyte infections and terbinafine resistance in routine dermatology practice.
methodsSixty-four dermatophyte isolates obtained from patients with chronic or treatment-resistant dermatophytosis in Türkiye wereanalysed. Species identification and detection of squalene epoxidase (SQLE) gene mutations associated with terbinafine resistance were performed using DermaGenius RMP and the in-house T. indotineae-specific qPCR assay, with confirmatory ITS/SQLE sequencing and CLSI microbroth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing.
resultsOverall concordance between the two qPCR methods was 93.8% (κ = 0.74, z = 5.99, p < 0.001) for T. indotineae identification. Most recalcitrant cases were caused by T. indotineae, and SQLE mutations were detected in > 90% of these isolates, consistent with the observed clinical resistance. DermaGenius RMP enabled rapid, standardised detection of terbinafine resistance-associated mutations suitable for routine diagnostics, whereas the in-house qPCR provided highly specific identification of T. indotineae. Notably, 10 T. indotineae isolates harboured the SQLE F397L substitution despite terbinafine susceptibility.
conclusionsRapid molecular diagnostics, particularly qPCR-based assays, provide actionable information early in the course of infection. In this study, both assays showed comparable performance for T. indotineae detection. Prompt identification of T. indotineae and associated resistance mutations may help avoid ineffective antifungal therapy, reduce chronicity, and support rational treatment decisions in routine clinical practice.
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.