↓ Skip to main content

Serological biomarkers of candidemia: a retrospective evaluation of three assays

Overview of attention for article published in Infection, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Serological biomarkers of candidemia: a retrospective evaluation of three assays
Published in
Infection, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s15010-018-1224-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl Dichtl, Ulrich Seybold, Johannes Wagener

Abstract

Serologic testing allows for rapid detection of candidemia. More data are needed for the Virion\Serion ELISA antigen test (Ag), Hemkit Candida IHA antibody test (Ab), and Wako β-1,3-D-glucan assay (BDG). Tests were performed on serum samples from 120 cases of culture-confirmed candidemia and 44 Candida-negative controls. Sensitivities and specificities of individual tests as well as combinations were assessed. The overall sensitivity of Ag, Ab, and Ag/Ab testing was 30, 40, and 54%, respectively, while in transplant patients it significantly dropped to 16, 26, and 40% (p = 0.02). For BDG testing it was 67%, both overall and in transplant patients. Especially Ag testing performed poorly among women ≤ 65 years with a significantly reduced sensitivity of 9% (p < 0.002). While the sensitivity of Ag/Ab testing was somewhat higher at 67% for C. albicans, it was significantly lower for non-albicans species at 42% (p = 0.006). The sensitivity of BDG testing for C. albicans and non-albicans species was not significantly different at 64 and 69%, respectively. Both Ag/Ab and BDG testing had a high specificity of 93%, for Ag testing it was 100%. Similar sensitivities were calculated for sera sampled on the day of and 4-6 days before sampling of positive blood cultures. Serological markers are valuable tools for the early diagnosis of candidemia. Ab, Ag, and BDG testing are all characterized by high specificity. The Wako BDG test is significantly more sensitive compared to combined Candida-Ag/Ab testing, particularly in the setting of non-albicans species and specific host factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 10 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,535,139
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#1,257
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,074
of 341,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.