Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11709320›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2001

Efficacy of ravuconazole in treatment of mucosal candidosis in SCID mice.

K V Clemons, D A Stevens

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Madurella mycetomatis is highly susceptible to ravuconazole.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K V ClemonsCalifornia Institute for Medical Research and Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California 95128-2699, USA. clemons@cimr.org
D A Stevens
California Institute for Medical Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A model of orogastric candidosis in SCID mice, which mimics disease seen in AIDS patients, was used to evaluate ravuconazole in comparison with fluconazole for treatment. Mice were infected orally with Candida albicans and received either no treatment or oral treatment once daily for 12 days with 1, 5, or 25 mg of ravuconazole per kg of body weight per day, 5 or 25 mg of fluconazole per kg per day, or diluent (10% dimethyl sulfoxide in 0.5% carboxymethyl cellulose). The numbers of C. albicans CFU in the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, and cecum on day 25 in mice given no treatment and diluent were equivalent. Both doses of fluconazole significantly reduced numbers of CFU in all four tissues but were equivalent to each other. Ravuconazole showed dose-responsive improvement of clearance of CFU. Ravuconazole at 25 mg/kg was superior in reduction of numbers of CFU in all tissues to controls or 25 mg of fluconazole per kg and to other regimens in at least three tissues. Fluconazole at 25 mg/kg cured no infection in any tissue, whereas 25 mg of ravuconazole/kg cleared infection in all tissues from 50% of mice. Ravuconazole has good efficacy and the potential to cure mucosal candidosis in the absence of a functional immune response.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnimalsAntifungal AgentsCandidiasis, Chronic MucocutaneousDigestive SystemDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleMiceMice, SCIDMicrobial Sensitivity TestsThiazolesTriazolesAntifungal AgentsER 30346ThiazolesTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID11709320
PMCPMC90849
OpenAlexW1992720208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.