Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15456333›Full record

ReviewDrugs2004

Management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients.

Stijn Blot, Koenraad Vandewoude

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. SevereJournal of intensive medicine · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Prospective study in critically ill non-neutropenic patients: diagnostic potential of (1,3)-β-D-glucan assay and circulating galactomannan for the diagnosis of invasive fungal disease.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A review of Candida prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care population.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2011
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Stijn BlotIntensive Care Department, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. stijn.blot@UGent.be
Koenraad Vandewoude
Ghent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Candida species have become predominant pathogens in critically ill patients. In this population, invasive candidiasis is associated with a poor prognosis but adequate management can limit the attributable mortality. Adequate management, however, is hampered by a problematic diagnosis as the clinical picture of invasive disease is non-specific and blood cultures have a low sensitivity. Moreover, it is often hard to differentiate colonisation from infection and many critically ill patients are heavily colonised with Candida species, especially when receiving broad-spectrum antibacterials. The question of which antifungal agent to choose has become more complex as the development of new drugs raises promising expectations. Until the 1980s therapy for invasive candidiasis was limited to amphotericin B, but with the advent of new antifungal agents, such as azoles and echinocandins, less toxic therapeutic options are possible and doors have opened towards prevention and optimised therapy in the case of documented candidiasis. Through the arrival of these new antifungal agents, a range of therapeutic strategies for the management of invasive candidiasis has been developed: antifungal prophylaxis, pre-emptive therapy, and empirical and definitive antifungal therapy. Each of these strategies has a specific target population, as defined by specific underlying conditions and/or individual risk factors. Antifungal prophylaxis, in order to prevent candidal infection, is based on the type of underlying diseases with a high risk for invasive candidiasis. Individual risk factors are not taken into account. Potential indications are bone marrow transplantation, liver transplantation, recurrent gastrointestinal perforations or leakages, and surgery for acute necrotising pancreatitis. Pre-emptive therapy is also a preventive strategy. It can be recommended on the basis of an individual risk profile including overt candidal colonisation. Empirical therapy is started in patients with a risk profile for invasive candidiasis. It is recommended in the presence of clinical signs of infection, deteriorating clinical parameters, or a clinical picture of infection not responding to antibacterials but in the absence of a clear causative pathogen. Definitive antifungal therapy is defined as therapy in patients with documented invasive infection. The main goal is to maintain a balance between optimal prevention and timely initiation of therapy on one hand, and to minimise selection pressure in order to avoid a shift towards less susceptible Candida species on the other hand.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAntifungal AgentsBelgiumCandidiasisCross InfectionHumansIntensive Care UnitsRisk FactorsAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID15456333
OpenAlexW1976421283

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.