English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compared EUCAST and CLSI methods versus Etest for antifungal susceptibility testing of 20 clinically relevant Fusarium species against amphotericin B, posaconazole, and voriconazole. The median Etest amphotericin B and posaconazole MICs were 1 dilution higher than the median EUCAST and the CLSI MICs. The essential agreement (within ±1/±2 dilutions) was 60/90%, 80/95%, and 70/85% between the Etest and EUCAST methods and 80/95%, 75/95%, and 45/100% between the Etest and CLSI methods for amphotericin B, voriconazole, and posaconazole, respectively. The categorical agreement was &gt;85%. Etest can be used for antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium species.

antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy

Comparative Evaluation of Etest, EUCAST, and CLSI Methods for Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, and Posaconazole against Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species