Risk Factors for Candidaemia in a Malaysian Tertiary Hospital

Khaithir, Tzar Mohd Nizam; Norazlah, B.; Shah, Shamsul Azhar

doi:10.17576/jsm-2015-4405-13

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review found only 8 out of 22 studies performed antifungal susceptibility tests. [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] The analysis of these studies shows the increasing resistance of NAC, especially against fluconazole and itraconazole. These results followed previous studies conducted in different parts of the world.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies included are referenced in the list of references. [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies used an epsilometer test strip, and others used a Sensititre YeastOne kit to check the antifungal susceptibility. [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ]…”

Section: R Esultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A review of studies on Candida species in Peninsular Malaysia

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies included are referenced in the list of references. [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of studies on Candida species in Peninsular Malaysia

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some of the reports deemed relevant in the ELS (16) reported W. anomalus / C. pelliculosa among fungi (mainly Candida spp.) isolated from patients with various serious underlying diseases and suffering infections by opportunistic microbes (Kuiper et al., ; Oliveira et al., ; Taj‐Aldeen et al., ; Lin et al., ; Nidhi et al., ; Tzar et al., ). Additionally, W. anomalus was always a minor fraction (less than 10%) of the isolates.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the update of the list of QPS‐recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA†

Ricci¹,

Allende²,

Bolton³

et al. 2017

EFS2

220

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EFSA is requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notification for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic preassessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended), and the completeness of the body of knowledge are assessed. Identified safety concerns for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. The list of QPS recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore becomes the valid list. The 2016 update reviews previously assessed microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts and viruses used for plant protection purposes following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. The taxonomic units related to the new notifications received since the 2013 QPS opinion, were periodically evaluated for a QPS status and the results published as Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel. Carnobacterium divergens, Lactobacillus diolivorans, Microbacterium imperiale, Pasteuria nishizawae, Pediococcus parvulus, Bacillus flexus, Bacillus smithii, Xanthomonas campestris and Candida cylindracea were recommended for the QPS list. All taxonomic units previously recommended for the 2013 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well their qualifications with the exception of Pasteuria nishizawae for which the qualification was removed. The exclusion of filamentous fungi and enterococci from the QPS evaluations was reconsidered but monitoring will be maintained and the status will be re-evaluated in the next QPS Opinion update. Evaluation of bacteriophages should remain as a case-by-case procedure and should not be considered for QPS status. Acknowledgements: The BIOHAZ Panel wishes to thank the EFSA staff member: Mirena Ivanova for the support provided to this scientific output.

show abstract