<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.</journal-id>
<journal-title>Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="epub">2235-2988</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Frontiers Media S.A.</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fcimb.2023.1203892</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Cellular and Infection Microbiology</subject>
<subj-group>
<subject>Original Research</subject>
</subj-group>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Cross-sectional investigation of mycological diagnosis challenges in Saudi Arabia</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
<name>
<surname>Khateb</surname>
<given-names>Aiah Mustafa</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
</xref>
<xref ref-type="author-notes" rid="fn001">
<sup>*</sup>
</xref>
<uri xlink:href="https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1183746"/>
<xref ref-type="author-notes" rid="fn003">
<sup>&#x2020;</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Alkhaibari</surname>
<given-names>Shatha Ali</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>    <aff id="aff1">
<sup>1</sup>
<institution>Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, Collage of Applied Medical Science, Taibah University</institution>, <addr-line>Medina</addr-line>, <country>Saudi Arabia</country>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<sup>2</sup>
<institution>Special Infectious Agents Unit, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University</institution>, <addr-line>Jeddah</addr-line>, <country>Saudi Arabia</country>
</aff>
<author-notes>
<fn fn-type="edited-by">
<p>Edited by: Juanjuan Zhang, Fudan University, China</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="edited-by">
<p>Reviewed by: Ana Cl&#xe1;udia Coelho, University of Tr&#xe1;s-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Portugal; Sudhir Adhikari, B. P. Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital, Nepal</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="corresp" id="fn001">
<p>*Correspondence: Aiah Mustafa Khateb, <email xlink:href="mailto:AKHATEB@taibahu.edu.sa">AKHATEB@taibahu.edu.sa</email>
</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn003">
<p>&#x2020;ORCID: Aiah M Khateb, <uri xlink:href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-8748">orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-8748</uri>
</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>12</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2023</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
<year>2023</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>13</volume>
<elocation-id>1203892</elocation-id>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>11</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2023</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted">
<day>19</day>
<month>05</month>
<year>2023</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright &#xa9; 2023 Khateb and Alkhaibari</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2023</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Khateb and Alkhaibari</copyright-holder>
<license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
<p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.</p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract>
<sec>
<title>Background</title>
<p>The global incidence of fungal infection has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Fungal diseases threaten both immunocompetent, and immunocompromised patients. The current fungal diagnostics status in Saudi Arabia needs to be evaluated, especially with the increase of the immunosuppressed population. This cross-sectional study investigated the gaps in mycological diagnosis on a national level.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Materials and methods</title>
<p>The call interview questionnaire responses were collected to evaluate the demand for fungal assays, diagnostic methods&#x2019; quality, and mycological expertise of laboratory technologists in both public and private medical intuitions. The data were analyzed using (IBM SPSS <sup>&#xae;</sup> software version 22.0).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Results</title>
<p>A total of 57 hospitals from all Saudi regions participated in the questionnaire; however, only 32% received or processed mycological samples. Most participants were from the Mecca region (25%), Riyadh region (19%), and Eastern region (14%). The top fungal isolates identified were <italic>Candida</italic> spp., <italic>Aspergillus</italic> spp., and dermatophyte. Fungal investigation is highly requested by intensive care, dermatology, and obstetrics and gynecology units. Most laboratories rely on fungal culture and microscopic examination, which mostly identify <italic>Candida</italic> to the genus level, and use 37&#xb0;C incubators for culture (67%). Antifungal susceptibility testing (AST) and serological and molecular methods are rarely performed and mostly outsourced. Using accurate identification and AST are the primary factors to improve fungal diagnosis in respect to turnaround time and cost. The three major obstacles identified were availability of facility (47%), reagents and kits (32%), and good training (21%).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Conclusions</title>
<p>The results indicated that fungal diagnosis demand was relatively higher in high-population regions. This study highlighted the gaps in fungal diagnostics reference laboratories to encourage their improvement in Saudi hospitals.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>Saudi Arabia</kwd>
<kwd>diagnosis</kwd>
<kwd>mycology</kwd>
<kwd>
<italic>Candida</italic>
</kwd>
<kwd>
<italic>Aspergillus</italic>
</kwd>
<kwd>antifungal</kwd>
<kwd>susceptibility</kwd>
<kwd>resistance</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<counts>
<fig-count count="1"/>
<table-count count="2"/>
<equation-count count="0"/>
<ref-count count="28"/>
<page-count count="13"/>
<word-count count="4896"/>
</counts>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>section-in-acceptance</meta-name>
<meta-value>Fungal Pathogenesis</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="s1" sec-type="intro">
<label>1</label>
<title>Introduction</title>
<p>Fungal infections are raising across the globe due to the organism&#x2019;s adaptation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Pfaller and Diekema, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Bongomin et&#xa0;al., 2017</xref>). Despite the use of advanced diagnostic assays, fungal diagnosis, and differentiating colonization from infection, fungal diagnosis remains a mystery. A variety of challenges contribute to the clinical diagnosis of fungal pathogens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Wickes and Romanelli, 2020</xref>). A Saudi study reported 11 cases of fungal infection by <italic>Basidiobolus ranarum</italic> that were misdiagnosed as cancer, inflammatory bowel diseases, and granulomatous diseases (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Alshehri, 2013</xref>). The clinical symptoms are marked by their ambiguity and have high similarity with other diseases. Furthermore, early diagnosis and the optimal management of these infections require a high degree of suspicion, reliable diagnostic tests, and a strong educational background supported by extensive training in medical mycology (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Pfaller and Diekema, 2007</xref>). Increased resistance and virulence are observed in both clinical and environmental strains. A tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia investigated the changing pattern of <italic>Candida</italic> species from 2003 to 2012, reporting that invasive <italic>Candida</italic> infections caused by <italic>Candida albicans (C. albicans)</italic> remained steady throughout time with a significant increase of <italic>Candida glabrata</italic> (<italic>C. glabrata</italic>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Omrani et&#xa0;al., 2014</xref>). In 2020, Saudi studies reported <italic>C. glabrata</italic> as the most frequent resistant strain to antifungal treatments of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and candidemia with extended hospital stay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Aldardeer et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">Yassin et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>). Certain fungal species can cause serious outbreaks; thus, continuous surveillance and identifying the causative agents at the species level and measuring the resistance level are crucial. The <italic>Candida</italic> multidrug-resistant species known as <italic>Candida auris</italic> has caused outbreaks globally and continues to cause outbreaks in Saudi hospitals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Alshamrani et&#xa0;al., 2021</xref>). <italic>C. auris</italic> can persist for numerous weeks on patients&#x2019; skin and may cause outbreaks, which explains the elevated threat in a hospital&#x2019;s healthcare settings (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Chybowska et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Meyer et&#xa0;al., 2021</xref>). According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), due to the lack of laboratory equipment and wide identification capability, fungal infections caused by <italic>C. auris</italic> are difficult to confirm, which might lead to misdiagnosis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">CDC, 2019</xref>). Conventional methods such as microscopic examination and culture require higher experience to interpret the fungal species level. Advanced diagnostic methods increase the capability of fungal detection with minimum experience compared to conventional methods. However, financial obstructions result in the limited availability of these diagnostic instruments.</p>
<p>There is an urgent need to enhance the awareness of healthcare personnel of these emerging fungal pathogens and to identify its prevalence, impact, and resistance, specifically at a national level. To offer accurate diagnosis and execute early control measures to prevent hospital outbreaks, enhanced laboratory testing procedures are required to identify fungal infections (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Lu et&#xa0;al., 2018</xref>). The current fungal diagnostic capability is unknown in Saudi Arabia as there are no current data on the diagnostic capacity. Saudi Arabia was not included in the large survey of seven Asian countries for fungal diagnostic capabilities (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Chindamporn et&#xa0;al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Wang&#xa0;et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>). In this study, we investigated the demand for mycological diagnostic services in Saudi Arabian medical centers by call interviews designed to evaluate the tests ordered, diagnostic methods&#x2019; quality, and the mycological background of the laboratory technologists.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s2" sec-type="material|methods">
<label>2</label>
<title>Material and methods</title>
<sec id="s2_1">
<label>2.1</label>
<title>Study population</title>
<p>This cross-sectional study was targeted at microbiology/mycology laboratory technologists working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). We used a combination of phone calls, survey invitations, and snowball samplings to recruit the targeted sample. The invitation letter was distributed through official channels and professional networks. After collecting all hospitals numbers from the Ministry of Health (MOH) website, private invitations were sent to private hospitals and laboratories (approximately 450 hospitals in Saudi Arabia). The recommended sample size was 208 or more measurements/surveys in order to attain a confidence level of 95% and a real value within &#xb1;5% of the surveyed value. We contacted a total of 280 hospitals (227 government hospitals and 53 private hospitals).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s2_2">
<label>2.2</label>
<title>Survey design and data collection</title>
<p>A semi-structured questionnaire consisting of 32 questions was designed and categorized into five sections: demography, sample evaluation, laboratory space and equipment, fungal diagnostic tests, and manpower evaluation (<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="SM1">
<bold>Table S1</bold>
</xref>). The design of the questionnaire was based on previously published papers that were closely related to our topic (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Wang et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Driemeyer et&#xa0;al., 2022</xref>). The questionnaire was pretested, reviewed, and validated by experts before data collection. The data were collected by a call interview in March 2022, conducted from 10 am to 3 pm on weekdays. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS <sup>&#xae;</sup> software version 22.0 to identify and test the normality of all variables. Categorical data were presented as frequencies.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="s3" sec-type="results">
<label>3</label>
<title>Results</title>
<sec id="s3_1">
<label>3.1</label>
<title>Population demographics</title>
<p>There was a total response from 57 hospitals. The study included representative hospitals from all 13 Saudi regions. The majority of the participants were from the Mecca region (25% (n= 14)), followed by the Riyadh region (19% (n= 11)), Eastern region (14% (n= 8)), Northern Borders region (9% (n= 5)), Medina region (8% (n= 4)), Jizan region (5% (n= 3)), Hail region (5% (n= 3)), Al-Baha region (4% (n= 2)), Asir region (4% (n= 2)), and Tabuk region (4% (n= 2)), while the Al-Qassim, Najran, and Al-Jouf regions were 1 (2%) each. Most participating hospitals were from the private sector (60% (n= 34)), while 40% (n= 23) were public hospitals, as shown in (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">
<bold>Table&#xa0;1</bold>
</xref>). Only 28% (n=15) of these hospitals had a microbiology laboratory that processed mycological samples, and 68% (n= 39) of them did not process mycological samples at all or used external services. Most data presented in the section below are from the 32% (n=18) of hospitals that were able to answer most of the questions regarding fungal detection. Most of these laboratories used external quality control schemes or accreditation, including the Saudi Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) (n=15, 60%), Joint Commission International (JCI) (n=5, 20%), College of American Pathologists (CAP) (n=2, 8%), and few that were not accredited (n=3, 12%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">
<bold>Table&#xa0;1</bold>
</xref>).</p>
<table-wrap id="T1" position="float">
<label>Table&#xa0;1</label>
<caption>
<p>Demography of participating hospitals.</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides">
<thead>
<tr>
<th valign="top" align="left"/>
<th valign="top" align="left">Number response (n)<break/>percentage (%)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="top" colspan="2" align="left">Demography</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top" colspan="2" align="left">Processed mycological samples in-house</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">18 (32%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">39 (68%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top" colspan="2" align="left">KSA Regions</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Mecca region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">14 (25%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Riyadh region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">11 (19%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Eastern region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">8 (14%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Northern region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">5 (9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Medina region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">4 (8%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Hail region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">3 (5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Jizan region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">3 (5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Al-Baha region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">2 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Asir region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">2 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Tabuk region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">2 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Al-Qassim region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">1 (2%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Najran region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">1 (2%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Al-Jouf region</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">1 (2%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="top" colspan="2" align="left">Institution type</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Private hospital</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">34 (60%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">Public hospital</td>
<td valign="top" align="left">23 (40%)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="s3_2">
<label>3.2</label>
<title>Fungal load and samples assessment</title>
<p>Among Saudi regions, the average number of fungal specimens received per month was 26 samples (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">
<bold>Figure&#xa0;1</bold>
</xref>). Most fungal samples were sent from intensive care units (n=7, 30%) followed by dermatology departments (n= 6, 26%), obstetrics and gynecology departments (n=5, 22%), and long-term care units (n=2, 9%). The most common fungal pathogens were <italic>Candida</italic> spp. (n=15, 65%), <italic>Aspergillus</italic> spp. (n= 4, 17%), <italic>Dermatophyte</italic> spp. (n=2, (9%), <italic>Trichophyton</italic> spp. (n=1, 4%), and <italic>Cryptococcus</italic> spp. (n=1, 4%). All hospitals indicated that skin and nail scrapings were the most sent samples for fungal investigations (n=11, 35%), followed by swabs (n=8, 26%), urine (4, 13%), and sputum (n=3, 10%), while vaginal, biopsy, wound, hair, and blood were 3% each (n=1) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). Fungal investigation for BAL samples was not common, with seven hospitals (39%) indicating they received less than five samples per month in the last 12 months, while ten hospitals (56%) did not receive any in the past 12 months. Only one hospital (6%) received 25-50 per months in this period. Biopsy Fresh frozen tissue specimen (BFFT) and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) were rare in most hospitals as 89% and 83% of them received less than five samples per month in the last 12 months. Most hospitals did not reject samples (n=12, 67%) in this period. Five hospitals (28%) reported rejecting 1-50 samples per month in this period due to improper storage (n=4, 17%) and improper collection (n=3, 13%). Other rejection reasons were incorrect labeling, incorrect sample size or sample type, incorrect order, or delayed samples (n=1, 4%).</p>
<fig id="f1" position="float">
<label>Figure&#xa0;1</label>
<caption>
<p>Fungal demand based on data presented from all Saudi regions.</p>
</caption>
<graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="fcimb-13-1203892-g001.tif"/>
</fig>
<table-wrap id="T2" position="float">
<label>Table&#xa0;2</label>
<caption>
<p>Survey responses from microbiology laboratories in KSA.</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides">
<thead>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" align="left"/>
<th valign="bottom" align="center">Number response (n)<break/>percentage (%)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Fungal load</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Most common fungal pathogen</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Candida</italic> spp.</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">15 (65%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Aspergillus</italic> spp.</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">4 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Dermatophyte</italic> spp.</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">2 (9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Trichophyton</italic> spp.</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Cryptococcus</italic> spp.</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Number of fungal specimens received/month</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">0-20</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">11(61%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">21-40</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">5 (28%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">41-60</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">1(6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left">&gt; 60</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">1(6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Hospital department with highest number of samples</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Intensive care unit</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (30%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Dermatology</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (26%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Obstetrics and gynecology</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (22%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Long-term care</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Transplantation and hematology</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Urology</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Surgical ward</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Most common sample type</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Skin and nail scraping</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">11 (35%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Swabs</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (26%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Urine</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Sputum</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (10%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Vaginal</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Biopsy</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Wound as pus</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Hair</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Blood</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Lowest received sample for fungal investigation</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">CSF</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (29%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Urine</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (18%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Biopsy</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (18%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Swabs</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Blood</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Urine from catheterized patient</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Skin or nail scraping</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Sputum</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">All mycological samples</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (11%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Number of BAL specimens received in the past 12 months</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">none</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">10 (56%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&lt;5/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">25-50/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Biopsy Fresh frozen tissue specimen received in the past 12 months</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&lt;5/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">16 (89%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">5-25/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">none</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">FFPE specimen received in the past 12 months</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">none</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (83%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">5-25/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&lt;5/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (12%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Laboratory Personal performing fungal detection</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Specialty</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Microbiologist</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (83%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">General laboratory specialist</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Years of experience</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&gt;10</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">12 (67%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&lt;10</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (33%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Certificates</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Bachelor&#x2019;s</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (33%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Master&#x2019;s</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (33%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">PhD</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Saudi board</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (11%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Diploma</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Requesting external consultation</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes, I would ask if there was any discrepancy.</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">11 (61%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No, I would rather not ask.</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Presence of at least one fungal expert personnel</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (83%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Maximum mold identification</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Genus</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (44%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Genus/species</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (28%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">N/A</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (22%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Can identify 40% by complex</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Maximum yeast identification</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Genus</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (44%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Genus/species</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (44%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">N/A</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Up to 70% of the samples identified by complex</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Laboratory equipment and reagents</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Biosafety cabinet (CLASS II)</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">17 (94%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Separate incubator for fungal culture</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">12 (67%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (33%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Available direct microscopy and staining method</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Gram stain</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (31%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">KOH preparation</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">14 (29%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Lactophenol cotton blue stain</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (19%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">India ink stain</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (8%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Grocott&#x2019;s methenamine silver stain</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Fluorescent</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Silver stain</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (2%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">ITS or 18s identification (molecular/sequencing)</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="center">18 (100%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Available mycological tests</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Semi-automated identification kit</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">11 (33%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Manual biochemical methods</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (18%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Chromogenic medium</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (12%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">PCR (commercial for limited species)</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Automated identification system</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Cryptococcus Ag</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Germ tube&#x2014;manual</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Galactomannan Ag</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">MALDI-TOF</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Media for fungal culture</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Sabouraud dextrose agar</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">18 (60%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Blood agar</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (10%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Sabouraud + chloramphenicol</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">CHROM agar</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Mycocel agar</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Dermatophytes media (DTM)</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Sabouraud + gentamicin</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Potato dextrose</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Routine used tests for mycological investigation</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Fungal culture</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Microscopic examination only</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Outsourced tests</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Antifungal susceptibility testing</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (16%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">PCR</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (12%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Culture</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (16%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">
<italic>Cryptococcus</italic> antigen</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">MALDI-TOF</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">All mycology samples</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">BDG</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Fungal biomarkers</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">GM Ag</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (32%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Performing AST</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No, we did not perform AST</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes, we performed AST for yeast only</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes, we performed AST for yeast and mold</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (22%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">AST Method</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Automated MIC for yeast tests</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">12 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Disk diffusion method</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (8%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">E-test</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (38%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Diagnostic criteria and quality</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Identified turnaround time as priority</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">2 - 9 (50%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">3 - 6 (33%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">1 - 3 (17%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Identified susceptibility as (primary, secondary, tertiary) decision factor</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">1 - 14(78%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">2 - 2 (11%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">3 - 2 (11%)</td>
<td valign="bottom" align="left"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Identified cost as (primary, secondary, tertiary) decision factor</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">3</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">10 (56%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">2</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">1</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">(6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">The ability to detect to the species level</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Strong need</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">10 (56%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Needed</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Limited need</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (11%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Not a strong need</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Would add a comprehensive fungal diagnostic test for</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">1-5 samples/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (34%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">&gt; 10 samples/month</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (22%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Would not order</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (44%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Rejected samples in the last 12 months</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">(1-50)</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5(28%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">(200-250)</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1(6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">12(67%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Reason of rejection</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Improper storage</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">4 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Improper collection</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Unlabeled</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Incorrect sample size or incorrect sample type</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Incorrect order or delayed samples</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">13 (57%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Use of quality controls and control strains</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (83%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Type of accreditation</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">CBAHI*</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (60%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">JCI**</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (20%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">CAP***</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (8%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (12%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Perform screening tests for asymptomatic patients</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">11 (61%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (39%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Awareness of fungal infections as serious threat</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">More than malaria or breast cancer</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">13 (72%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Less than malaria or breast cancer</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">5 (28%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Current tools for improvement of knowledge and technical skills</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">By practice</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">11 (52%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">By reading</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">6 (29%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">By taking courses</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">None</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (14%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Involvement in fungal research to advance diagnosis</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">15 (83%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">3 (17%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Interested in fungal research to advance diagnosis</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Mycological diagnostic tools adequate for confirming fungal infection</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">10 (56%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (44%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Current space for mycology samples</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Microbiology bench</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">16 (89%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Separate bench</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">A separate laboratory</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">1 (6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Need to add separate mycology section</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">No</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Yes</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">9 (50%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Obstacles impairing mycological diagnosis</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Clinicians do not request sample often/no need</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">13 (54%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Expensive kits</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">7 (29%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Unavailable/insufficient trained staff to handle fungal samples</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">2 (8%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="left">Challenges for laboratory technologist to diagnose fungal infections</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Availability of facility</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">18 (47%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Reagents and kits</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">12 (32%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" align="left">Good training</td>
<td valign="top" align="center">8 (21%)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn>
<p>*Saudi Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI).</p>
</fn>
<fn>
<p>**Joint Commission International (JCI).</p>
</fn>
<fn>
<p>***College of American Pathologists (CAP).</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</sec>
<sec id="s3_3">
<label>3.3</label>
<title>Laboratory personal performing mycological diagnosis</title>
<p>Most technologists were aware of the global fungal threat and recognized that fungal infections were more common than malaria and breast cancer (n=13, 72%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). Most of the survey participants were microbiologists (n=15, 83%) with more than 10 years&#x2019; experience (n=12, 67%). Most surveyed staff had both bachelor&#x2019;s and master&#x2019;s degrees (n=6, 33%). Three had PhD degrees (17%), two had Saudi board (11%), and one had diploma (6%). Most hospitals (n=15, 83%) had at least one expert mycologist who could identify the mold-to-genus level (n=8, 44%) and the species level (n=5, 28%), and one could identify 40% by complex (n=1, 6%). For yeast, most mycologists could offer maximum identification up to the genus (8, 44%) and species (8, 44%) levels and up to 70% of the yeast identified by complex (n=1, 6%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). For complicated cases, Saudi mycologist always request external consultation (n=11, 61%). They work on improving their technical skills and knowledge by practice (n=11, 52%), reading (n=6, 29%), and attending courses (n=1, 5%). The main challenges for laboratory technologists to diagnose fungal infections are the availability of facilities (n=18, 47%), reagents and kits (n=12, 32%), and good training (n=8, 21%). Three percent of the surveyed mycologists were involved in fungal research, and 50% (n= 9) were interested in research that would advance fungal diagnosis.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3_4">
<label>3.4</label>
<title>Laboratory space and fungal diagnostic services</title>
<p>Many of the hospitals indicated a lack or insufficiency of mycological diagnostic tools in their laboratories (n=10, 56%). Most fungal diagnoses were processed and analyzed on a microbiology bench (n=16, 89%) rather than a separate bench (n=1, 6%) or dedicated laboratory (n=1, 6%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). Almost all hospitals indicated use of a biosafety cabinet (CLASS II) (n=17, 94%). All hospitals routinely used both microscopic examination and culture tests for mycological investigation 15 (50%). The majority used a plan comprising Sabouraud dextrose agar (n=18, 60%), then blood agar (n=3, 10%), Sabouraud with chloramphenicol (n=2, 7%), CHROM agar (n=2, 7%), and Mycocel agar (n=2, 7%). Rarely, hospitals used dermatophytes media (DTM) (n=1, 3%), Sabouraud with gentamicin (n=1, 3%), and potato dextrose (n=1, 3%). Fungal cultures were incubated at 37&#xb0;C with a bacterial incubator in 67% of the surveyed hospitals (n=12), and only 33% (n=6) incubate them separately at 20-30&#xb0;C. Fifty percent of mycologists indicated their need for a dedicated section for mycological investigation (n=9, 50%). Of the hospitals that processed fungus samples, 47% (n=7) reported a turnaround time (TAT) of 2 to 4 weeks, 40% (n=6) reported1 week, and 13% (n=2) reported 4 weeks. For microscopical examination, the following staining techniques were used: Gram stain (n=15, 31%), potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation (n=14, 29%), lactophenol cotton blue stain (LPCB) (n=9, 19%), India ink stain (n=4, 8%), Grocott&#x2019;s methenamine silver stain (GMS) (n=3, 6%), calcofluor white stain (n=2, 4%), and silver stain (n=1, 2%).</p>
<p>Other identification tests were included by request, such as a semi-automated identification kit (n=11, 33%), matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization&#x2013;time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) (n=1, 3%), automated identification system (n=3, 9%), manual biochemical methods (n=6, 18%), germ tube test&#x2014;manual (n=2, 6%), chromogenic medium (n=4, 12%), PCR (commercial for limited species) (n=2, 6%), galactomannan (GM)Ag (n=1, 3%), and <italic>Cryptococcus</italic> Ag (n=1, 3%), while other hospitals did not perform any of the previously mentioned tests (n=2, 6%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). None of the hospitals performed sequencing for fungal identification, such as nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) or 18S rRNA gene (n=18, 100%). Many tests were outsourced to private laboratories, including antifungal susceptibility testing (AST) (n=4, 16%), PCR (n=3, 12%), culture (n=4, 16%), <italic>Cryptococcus</italic> antigen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Bongomin et&#xa0;al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Wickes and Romanelli, 2020</xref>),-&#x3b2;-d-glucan (BDG), GM (n=1, 4%), MALDI-TOF (n=1, 4%), and all mycology samples (n=1, 4%), while others did not (n=9, 36%). AST was performed abundantly for yeast only (n=7, 39%), though few hospitals had AST for both mold and yeast (n=4, 22%), and many did not perform the test (n=7, 39%). The most used AST method was automated minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for yeast tests (n=12, 50%), followed by the disk diffusion method (n=2, 8%) and E-test (n=1, 4%), though many did not perform the test (n=9, 38%). Most of mycological diagnostic laboratories used quality controls and control strains (n=15, 83%), while only three (17%) did not. Screening for high-risk asymptomatic patients was not performed in many hospitals (n=11, 61%), though a few did (n=7, 39%).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3_5">
<label>3.5</label>
<title>General challenges and improvements</title>
<p>To improve fungal detection, we examined three factors: susceptibility, turnaround, and cost. Most mycologists prioritized the identified susceptibility as primary (n=14, 78%), while others thought it was secondary or tertiary (n= 2, 11%). The turnaround time was the secondary priority (n=9, 50%), while cost played a tertiary factor for adding new assays (n=10, 56%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). Other obstacles impairing mycological diagnosis included empirical treatment without sending a sample for fungal investigation (n=13, 54%), expensive kits/unable to provide (n=7, 29%), and unavailable/insufficient trained staff to handle fungal samples (n=2, 8%). Based on the current fungal load, most laboratories would not need a comprehensive fungal assay (n=8, 44%). Other hospitals would order more than 10 samples per month (n=4, 22%) or 1 to 5 samples per month (n=1, 34%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">
<bold>Table&#xa0;2</bold>
</xref>). A large percentage of hospitals had a strong need to provide assays that provide genus/species identification (n=10, 56%), while fewer needed (n=3, 17%) or had a limited need (n=2, 11%), and one hospital did not have a need (n=1, 6).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="s4" sec-type="discussion">
<label>4</label>
<title>Discussion</title>
<p>This study intended to investigate the gap in fungal diagnosis and compare challenges reported in the literature with those in national Saudi hospitals. The distribution of fungal infections between geographic areas is affected by environmental conditions, climate, travel, and population. Although Saudi Arabia is known for its desert environment, which is extremely hot and dry in the summer and cold and dry in the winter, the southwest has a semi-arid climate, and the west and east coasts have increased humidity. Saudi Arabia has a hot and humid climate in the summer. As a result, dermatophytoses such as <italic>tinea corporis</italic> and <italic>tinea cruris</italic> were discovered to be the most frequent types of dermatophytosis in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Al-Sogair et&#xa0;al., 1991</xref>). The likelihood of dermatophytes infections is present in almost all seasons, as reported in another Saudi study about an increase of dermatophytosis seasonal incidence during the winter and spring (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Alshehri et&#xa0;al., 2021</xref>). These studies explain why nail and skin scrapings are the most common sample types that underwent fungal investigations in our study. All the participating hospitals rely on microscopic examination to diagnose this type of fungal infections, as shown in the results. The microscopic examination of dermatophytes has 90.5% accuracy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Aboul-Ella et&#xa0;al., 2020</xref>) Although microscopic examination is the gold standard to diagnose dermatophytes, differentiating dermatophyte hyphae/elements from other fungi requires a high scale of experience (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Kidd and Weldhagen, 2022</xref>).</p>
<p>The <italic>Candida</italic> genera were the most dominant in all hospitals, agreeing with the global estimates of fungal infections (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Bongomin et&#xa0;al., 2017</xref>). We anticipate that there is a chance for false negatives or misidentification related to the absence of a dedicated incubator for fungi and the non-standardized incubation temperature represented by some of the participated laboratories. Molds are more challenging to diagnose compared to yeasts. Generally, fungal culture requires an extended incubation time for growth compared to yeasts. Furthermore, culture difficulties were reported in 17 cases, with 7 cultures positive with IA from hematologic patients, especially the culture of <italic>Aspergillus</italic> from respiratory specimens, which may have been missed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Althoff Souza et&#xa0;al., 2006</xref>). Serological tests such as GM were not widely accessible for diagnosing <italic>Aspergillus</italic> infections, and cross-reactivity has been observed in immunocompromised patients (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Barton, 2013</xref>). Similarly, assessing mold diagnosis with molecular tests such as PCR was not commonly used and in some cases outsourced. It is recommended to use molecular advance techniques to improve sensitivity and overcome cross reactivity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Bretagne and Alanio, 2017</xref>).</p>
<p>With the increase of the immunosuppressed population in Saudi Arabia, we predict that there will be a rise in the number of fungal infections in this patient population. According to the cancer trends in Saudi Arabia, the most prevalent malignancies were leukemia, colorectal cancer, and Hodgkin&#x2019;s lymphoma among Saudi men. In Saudi women, the most common were breast, thyroid, and colorectal cancer. Hematological cancers are among the three malignancy categories with the highest prevalence. However, the present gaps lead to an increase in false negative results, thus causing an underestimate of fungal infection reports. For example, basidiobolomycosis is a known as a rare fungal infection that affects immunocompetent young adults and rarely affects the gastrointestinal tract. In the past few years, many Saudi Arabian studies have reported cases of <italic>Basidiobolus ranarum</italic>, with most reported cases in children and the majority coming from the&#xa0;southern region of Saudi Arabia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Alshehri, 2013</xref>). None of the southern hospitals reported detecting <italic>Basidiobolus ranarum.</italic> The gold standard diagnostic test for distinguishing these mycotic lesions from malignancy is using histopathological methods and species confirmation by culture or polymerase chain reaction (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Vs et&#xa0;al., 2021</xref>). Biopsies must be sent to the microbiology laboratory to complete the required diagnosis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Bretagne and Alanio, 2017</xref>). According to our results, only few biopsies are sent to the microbiology department for fungal investigation. However, in many cases, the tissue samples were sent in formalin, killing all microorganisms. Sixteen percent of the participants indicated good training was a challenge, and five percent reported a lack of knowledge. The responsibility of sending the required samples falls upon the healthcare team and policymakers. The diagnosis of fungal infection requires a wide index of suspicion, good training, and greater understanding of some rare condition aids in early detection. In mycology laboratories, this can be achieved by following a standardized diagnostic scheme for early diagnosis and assessing the validity for diagnostic results to implement a precise medical intervention and to avoid delay of the treatment.</p>
<p>We asked the participants to evaluate three factors, namely, susceptibility testing, turnaround time, and cost, based on their diagnostic need. Most participants chose susceptibility testing as the first choice, which shows a good adherence to mycology practice. Susceptibility testing became important in healthcare settings to track the transmission of some well-known multi-drug-resistant organisms such as <italic>Candida auris</italic>. Outbreaks of <italic>C. auris</italic> have been reported globally and in Saudi Arabia. A further challenge is that proper identification of <italic>C. auris</italic> needs specialized laboratory methods. Misidentification and incorrect treatment of this fungus are common in healthcare facilities due to obsolete or outdated techniques, rendering it difficult to control its spread. Local healthcare authorities and laboratories need to ensure that proper diagnostic methods are used to detect <italic>C. auris</italic> to reduce its transmission circle, as suggested by the CDC (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2022</xref>). According to our results, most local laboratories depend on semi-automated identification kits to perform fungal susceptibility testing. More efforts should be directed to prevention as healthcare systems shift toward routine screening for <italic>C. auris</italic> colonization (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Kordalewska and Perlin, 2019</xref>). While MALDI-TOF can correctly identify <italic>C.&#xa0;auris</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Shallu K et&#xa0;al., 2015</xref>), biochemical reaction-based commercial methods such as Vitek 2 and API tests can misidentify <italic>C. auris</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Ding et&#xa0;al., 2019</xref>). Misidentification is one of the obstacles that delays treatment interventions and causes long TAT for the growth of fungal culture. The association between hospital mortality and the time of antifungal treatment after the reporting of a positive culture for candidemia shows higher mortality risks after more than 12 hours&#x2019; delay of treatment (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Morrell et&#xa0;al., 2005</xref>). Therefore, the need for cost-effective diagnostic tools that provide a rapid result is crucial. According to our results, most laboratories lack fungal selective culture media, fungal serological tests, and lateral flow, which were not available in all the laboratories as screening or monitoring tests. Although cost is a dominant factor from the direct purchasers&#x2019; perspective, it is important to highlight the national precautions being undertaken against the growing incidence of fungal infections when considering allocating an adequate budget for fungal tests.</p>
<p>Some questions in our survey were designed to investigate the opinions of laboratory specialists about the fungal diagnostic status in their institutions. The responses emphasized the need for fungal diagnostic improvements, with half of the participants suggesting a dedicated place for fungal samples and advanced diagnostic tests such as next-generation sequence (NGS), which provide prompt results compared to conventional methods. We closed the survey by asking the participants about the challenges they most encounter as laboratory specialists in diagnosing fungal infections, and most of the answers ranged from lack of equipment and facilities or diagnostic tests to insufficient knowledge and limited mycology experts. We believe that fungal diagnostics can be improved if the challenges and required diagnostic needs are addressed.</p>
<p>This is the first cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia investigating the current status of fungal diagnosis and the general need for local mycological diagnosis in Saudi hospitals. Although 280 hospitals were contacted, only 57 participants were able to complete part of the survey. This was due to lack of facilities&#xa0;or staff or because fungal detection was not performed. There was also a limitation in using call interviews as participants&#x2019; answers were approximate, which may point to recall bias. The hypothetical and opinion questions were prone to self-report and social desirability biases as some participants may have felt pressure.&#xa0;According to the population load, there was a good representation of all regions of Saudi Arabia. Diagnosing fungal infections is still difficult due to the distinctive nature of fungi&#xa0;and&#xa0;the relative frequency of infection compared to bacteria. This&#xa0;has created considerable challenges for developing rapid, comprehensive assays for fungal identification and implementing them globally (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Wickes and Romanelli, 2020</xref>). Based on this study, the following recommendations are advised for better fungal detection: (i) to establish an active fungal reference laboratory equipped with all the required tests; (ii) to acquire rapid diagnostic tests with long shelf lives; (iii) to reconsider fungal diagnostic schemes and external quality assessment programs specialized for fungi; (iv) to increase awareness of fungal diseases by offering fungal courses, seminars, and workshops to healthcare teams; (v) to adapt more fungal research to understand and implement novel technologies to solve the current clinical fungal diagnostic problems; and (vi) to dedicate national open-source documentation in all medical institutions for fungal infections.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s5" sec-type="data-availability">
<title>Data availability statement</title>    <p>The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/<xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="SM1">
<bold>Supplementary Material</bold>
</xref>. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s6" sec-type="ethics-statement">
<title>Ethics statement</title>
<p>This project was approved by the Ethical Committee of Scientific Research at the College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University. Consent signatures were collected electronically in the survey invitation forms.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s7" sec-type="author-contributions">
<title>Author contributions</title>
<p>AMK was responsible for the organization, design, and coordination of the study and was also the chief investigator and responsible for the data analysis. SA conducted the interviews and&#xa0;oversaw the initial data analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the final manuscript.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<sec id="s8" sec-type="funding-information">
<title>Funding</title>
<p>This research was funded by Taibah University, represented by the Deanship of Scientific Research grant number RC-442/10 awarded to AMK.</p>
</sec>
<ack>
<title>Acknowledgments</title>
<p>We are grateful to all the study participants and the medical center. We wish to express our admiration to all healthcare members for their dedication and desire to improve mycological diagnosis. The authors extend their appreciation to Taibah University, represented by the Deanship of Scientific Research, for funding this project no. (RC-442/10).</p>
</ack>
<sec id="s9" sec-type="COI-statement">
<title>Conflict of interest</title>
<p>The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s10" sec-type="disclaimer">
<title>Publisher&#x2019;s note</title>
<p>All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s11" sec-type="supplementary-material">
<title>Supplementary material</title>
<p>The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1203892/full#supplementary-material">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1203892/full#supplementary-material</ext-link>
</p>
<supplementary-material xlink:href="Table_1.docx" id="SM1" mimetype="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document"/>
</sec>
<ref-list>
<title>References</title>
<ref id="B1">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Aboul-Ella</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hamed</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Abo-Elyazeed</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Recent trends in rapid diagnostic techniques for dermatophytosis</article-title>. <source>Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med.</source> <volume>8</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>115</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>123</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/23144599.2020.1850204</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Aldardeer</surname> <given-names>N. F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Albar</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Al-Attas</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Eldali</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Qutub</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hassanien</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Antifungal resistance in patients with candidaemia: a retrospective cohort study</article-title>. <source>BMC Infect. Dis.</source> <volume>20</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>16</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12879-019-4710-z</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Alshamrani</surname> <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>El-Saed</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Mohammed</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Alghoribi</surname> <given-names>M. F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Al Johani</surname> <given-names>S. M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Cabanalan</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Management of <italic>Candida auris</italic> outbreak in a tertiary-care setting in Saudi Arabia</article-title>. <source>Infect. Control Hosp Epidemiol</source> <volume>42</volume> (<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>149</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>155</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/ice.2020.414</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Alshehri</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>Basidiobolomycosis: an emerging fungal infection of the gastrointestinal tract in adults</article-title>. <source>Am. J. Infect. Dis.</source> <volume>9</volume>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>6</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3844/ajidsp.2013.1.6</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Alshehri</surname> <given-names>B. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Alamri</surname> <given-names>A. M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Rabaan</surname> <given-names>A. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Al-Tawfiq</surname> <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Epidemiology of dermatophytes isolated from clinical samples in a hospital in Eastern Saudi Arabia: a 20-year survey</article-title>. <source>J. Epidemiol. Glob Health</source> <volume>11</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>405</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>412</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s44197-021-00005-5</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Al-Sogair</surname> <given-names>S. M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Moawad</surname> <given-names>M. K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Al-Humaidan</surname> <given-names>Y. M.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>1991</year>). <article-title>Fungal infection as a cause of skin disease in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia: tinea pedis and tinea manuum: pilzinfektionen als ursache von hautkrankheiten in der ostprovinz Saudi-arabiens: tinea pedis und tinea manuum</article-title>. <source>Mycoses</source> <volume>34</volume> (<issue>7&#x2013;8</issue>), <fpage>339</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>344</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1439-0507.1991.tb00673.x</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Althoff Souza</surname> <given-names>C.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>M&#xfc;ller</surname> <given-names>N. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Marchiori</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Escuissato</surname> <given-names>D. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Franquet</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Pulmonary invasive aspergillosis and candidiasis in immunocompromised patients: a comparative study of the high-resolution CT findings</article-title>. <source>J. Thorac. Imaging</source> <volume>21</volume> (<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>184</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>189</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/01.rti.0000213552.16011.ad</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Barton</surname> <given-names>R. C.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>Laboratory diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: from diagnosis to prediction of outcome</article-title>. <source>Scientific (Cairo)</source> <volume>2013</volume>, <fpage>459405</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1155/2013/459405</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Bongomin</surname> <given-names>F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Gago</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Oladele</surname> <given-names>R. O.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Denning</surname> <given-names>D. W.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Global and multi-national prevalence of fungal diseases&#x2013;estimate precision</article-title>. <source>J. Fungi</source> <volume>3</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>35</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/jof3040057</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Bretagne</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Alanio</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2017</year>). <article-title>Challenges in microbiological diagnosis of invasive <italic>Aspergillus</italic> infections</article-title>. <source>F1000Res</source> <volume>6</volume>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>13</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.12688/f1000research.10619.1</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<collab>CDC</collab>
</person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>General information about candida auris</article-title>. <source>Center Dis. Control Prev.</source> <fpage>3</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>5</lpage>. Available at: <uri xlink:href="https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/candida-auris-qanda.html">https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/candida-auris-qanda.html</uri>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Chindamporn</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Chakrabarti</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Li</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Sun</surname> <given-names>P. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Tan</surname> <given-names>B. H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Chua</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2018</year>). <article-title>Survey of laboratory practices for diagnosis of fungal infection in seven Asian countries: an Asia fungal working group (AFWG) initiative</article-title>. <source>Med. Mycol.</source> <volume>56</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>416</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>425</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/mmy/myx066</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Chybowska</surname> <given-names>A. D.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Childers</surname> <given-names>D. S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Farrer</surname> <given-names>R. A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Nine things genomics can tell us about candida auris</article-title>. <source>Front. Genet.</source> <volume>11</volume>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>31</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fgene.2020.00351</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Ding</surname> <given-names>C. H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Situ</surname> <given-names>S. F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Steven</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Razak</surname> <given-names>M. F. A.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>The pitfall of utilizing a commercial biochemical yeast identification kit to detect candida auris</article-title>. <source>Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci.</source> <volume>49</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>546</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>549</lpage>. </citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Driemeyer</surname> <given-names>C.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Falci</surname> <given-names>D. R.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Oladele</surname> <given-names>R. O.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Bongomin</surname> <given-names>F.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Ocansey</surname> <given-names>B. K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Govender</surname> <given-names>N. P.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>The current state of clinical mycology in Africa: a European confederation of medical mycology and international society for human and animal mycology survey</article-title>. <source>Lancet Microbe</source> <volume>5247</volume> (<issue>21</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>28</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00190-7</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Kidd</surname> <given-names>S. E.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Weldhagen</surname> <given-names>G. F.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2022</year>). <article-title>Diagnosis of dermatophytes: from microscopy to direct PCR</article-title>. <source>Microbiol. Aust.</source> <volume>43</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>9</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>13</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1071/MA22005</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Kordalewska</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Perlin</surname> <given-names>D. S.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2019</year>). <article-title>Molecular diagnostics in the times of surveillance for candida auris</article-title>. <source>J. Fungi</source> <volume>5</volume> (<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>77</fpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/jof5030077</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Lu</surname> <given-names>P. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>W. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Lo</surname> <given-names>H. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>F. D.</given-names>
</name>    <name>
<surname>Ko</surname> <given-names>W. C.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hsueh</surname> <given-names>P. R.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2018</year>). <article-title>Are we ready for the global emergence of multidrug-resistant candida auris in Taiwan</article-title>? <source>J. Formosan Med. Assoc.</source> <volume>117</volume> (<issue>6</issue>), <fpage>462</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>470</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jfma.2017.10.005</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Meyer</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Martin</surname> <given-names>E. K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Madad</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Dhagat</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Nuzzo</surname> <given-names>J. B.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Preparedness and response to an emerging health threat-lessons learned from <italic>Candida auris</italic> outbreaks in the united states</article-title>. <source>Infect control Hosp. Epidemiol.</source> <volume>42</volume> (<issue>11</issue>), <fpage>1301</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1306</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/ice.2021.12</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Morrell</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Fraser</surname> <given-names>V. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Kollef</surname> <given-names>M. H.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Delaying the empiric treatment of <italic>Candida</italic> bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality</article-title>. <source>Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.</source> <volume>49</volume> (<issue>9</issue>), <fpage>3640</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>3645</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/AAC.49.9.3640-3645.2005</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Omrani</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Makkawy</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Baig</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Baredhwan</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Almuthree</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Elkhizzi</surname> <given-names>N.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>Ten-year review of invasive <italic>Candida</italic> infections in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia</article-title>. <source>Saudi Med. J.</source> <volume>35</volume>, <fpage>821</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>826</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Pfaller</surname> <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Diekema</surname> <given-names>D. J.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem</article-title>. <source>Clin. Microbiol. Rev.</source> <volume>20</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>133</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>163</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/CMR.00029-06</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Shallu</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Singh</surname> <given-names>P. K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Cheshta</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Anupam</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Aradhana</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Anil</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2015</year>). <article-title>Multidrug-resistant <italic>Candida auris</italic> misidentified as candida haemulonii: characterization by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization&#x2013;time of flight mass spectrometry and DNA sequencing and its antifungal susceptibility profile variability by vitek 2, CL</article-title>. <source>J. Clin. Microbiol.</source> <volume>53</volume> (<issue>6</issue>), <fpage>1823</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>1830</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/jcm.00367-15</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<citation citation-type="web">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<collab>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</collab>
</person-group> (<year>2022</year>) <source>Antibiotic/Antimicrobial resistance (AR/AMR) c. auris: CDC &#x2018; s response to a global emerging threat CDC works to contain the global emerging threat</source>. Available at: <uri xlink:href="https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/c-auris-screening.html">https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/c-auris-screening.html</uri>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Vs</surname> <given-names>V.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Hallur</surname> <given-names>V.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Samal</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Chouhan</surname> <given-names>M. I.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Bhat</surname> <given-names>S. J.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Kumar</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2021</year>). <article-title>Basidiobolomycosis of right colon mimicking as carcinoma of colon</article-title>. <source>ACG Case Rep. J.</source> <volume>8</volume> (<issue>5</issue>), <fpage>3</fpage>, <elocation-id>e0057</elocation-id>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14309/crj.0000000000000573</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>Y.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Yang</surname> <given-names>Q. W.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Ni</surname> <given-names>Y. X.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Lin</surname> <given-names>L. K.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Luo</surname> <given-names>Y. P.</given-names>
</name>
<etal/>
</person-group>. (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>A national survey on fungal infection diagnostic capacity in the clinical mycology laboratories of tertiary care hospitals in China</article-title>. <source>J. Microbiol Immunol. Infect</source> <volume>53</volume> (<issue>6</issue>), <fpage>845</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>853</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.016</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Wickes</surname> <given-names>B. L.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Romanelli</surname> <given-names>A. M.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>Diagnostic mycology: xtreme challenges</article-title>. <source>J. Clin. Microbiol.</source> <volume>58</volume> (<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>12</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/JCM.01345-19</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Yassin</surname> <given-names>M. T.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Mostafa</surname> <given-names>A. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Al-Askar</surname> <given-names>A. A.</given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname>Bdeer</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names>
</name>
</person-group> (<year>2020</year>). <article-title>
<italic>In vitro</italic> antifungal resistance profile of <italic>Candida</italic> strains isolated from Saudi women suffering from vulvovaginitis</article-title>. <source>Eur. J. Med. Res.</source> <volume>25</volume> (<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x2013;<lpage>13</lpage>. doi: <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s40001-019-0399-0</pub-id>
</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>