ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2008
Fungal endocarditis.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synergistic eradication ofFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cryptococcal Endocarditis in Humans-A Narrative Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recurrent fungal endocarditis of the aortic valve: A challenging clinical scenario.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Candida endocarditis: Update on management considerations.World journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Article
- Cryptococcus neoformans endocarditis in an immunocompetentpatient a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Article
- Cardiac Aspergilloma: A Rare Case of a Cardiac Mass Involving the Native Tricuspid Valve, Right Atrium, and Right Ventricle in an Immunocompromised Patient.Case reports in cardiology · 2018Article
- Successful management of fungal pericarditis and endocarditis in a neonate: A case report.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fungal endocarditis (FE) is an increasingly prevalent and devastating disease in today's highly advancing medical practice. With more patients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics or invasive interventions including long-term central venous catheters or prosthetic heart valve placements, FE is increasingly reported. Recognizing FE early can be difficult, because it often lacks some classic signs and symptoms found in bacterial endocarditis. Diagnosis can be further complicated by the difficulty of making FE meet the Duke Criteria, because blood cultures are often negative, despite vegetations demonstrated on echocardiography. Newer diagnostic modalities show some potential for future use; however, these methods are not yet ready to use for reliable diagnosis. Overall, the burden of diagnosis still lies with clinicians: they need a high index of suspicion for the entity by understanding the organisms and the patients who are likely to be infected. FE can only be effectively treated and its potential deadly outcomes avoided when it is recognized early. New antifungal agents such as second-generation triazoles and echinocandins demonstrate a dramatically improved toxicity profile compared to amphotericin B and increase optimism regarding FE management.
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.