SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Amphotericin B vs fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or to patients with persistent fever.
objectivesTo compare the effect of fluconazole and amphotericin B on morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library (March 2000). Letters, abstracts, and unpublished trials. The industry and authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, colonisation, use of additional (escape) antifungal therapy and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were extracted by both authors independently. MAIN
resultsThirteen trials (2977 patients) were included. In 3 large 3-armed trials, which comprised 43% of the patients, results for amphotericin B were combined with results for nystatin in a "polyene" group. Because nystatin is an ineffective drug in theses circumstances, this approach creates a bias in favour of fluconazole. Furthermore, 79% of the patients were randomised to oral amphotericin B, which is poorly absorbed and poorly documented. It was unclear whether there was overlap among the "polyene" trials. We were unable to obtain any information to clarify these issues from the trial authors or the manufacturer of fluconazole. There was no significant difference in effect between fluconazole and amphotericin B. Apart from the "polyene" trials, more patients dropped out of the study when they received amphotericin B. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsAmphotericin B had been disfavoured in most of the trials through their design or analysis. Since intravenous amphotericin B is the only antifungal agent with a documented effect on mortality and is considerably cheaper than fluconazole, it should be preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.