Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821309›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents to prevent invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants.

Nicola Austin, Brian A Darlow, William McGuire

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Fluconazole prophylaxis in preterm infants: a systematic review.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicola AustinNICU, Christchurch Womens Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Brian A Darlow
William McGuire
Hull York Medical School · GBWomen's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvasive fungal infection is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in very preterm (< 32 weeks gestation) or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Clinical uncertainly exists about the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungals to reduce mucocutaneous colonisation and so limit the risk of invasive fungal infection in this population.

objectivesTo assess the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal therapy on the incidence of invasive fungal infection, mortality and morbidity in VLBW infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 - May 2009), EMBASE (1980 - May 2009), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared the effect of prophylactic oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal therapy versus placebo or no drug or another antifungal agent or dose regimen in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by each review author and synthesis of data using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD). MAIN

resultsThree trials, in which a total of 1625 infants participated, have compared oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal prophylaxis (nystatin or miconazole) with placebo or no drug. These trials had various methodological weaknesses including quasi-randomisation, lack of allocation concealment, and lack of blinding of intervention and outcomes assessment. The incidence of invasive fungal infection was very high in the control groups of two of the included trials. Meta-analysis found a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of invasive fungal infection [typical RR 0.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14, 0.27); typical RD -0.19 (95% CI -0.22,-0.16)] but substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected. A statistically significant effect on mortality was not found [typical RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.72, 1.06); typical RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.06, 0.01)]. Long-term outcomes were not assessed by any of the trials.One small trial (N = 21) that assessed the effect of oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal prophylaxis (nystatin) compared with systemic antifungal (fluconazole) prophylaxis was underpowered to exclude important clinical effects. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe finding of a reduction in risk of invasive fungal infection in infants treated with oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal prophylaxis should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. Further large randomised controlled trials in current neonatal practice settings are needed to resolve this uncertainty. These trials might compare oral/topical non-absorbed antifungal agents with placebo, with each other, or with systemic antifungal agents and should include an assessment of effect on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Indexed as

Infant, Very Low Birth WeightAdministration, OralAntifungal AgentsCandidiasisCandidiasis, Chronic MucocutaneousFluconazoleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesMiconazoleNystatinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntifungal AgentsFluconazoleMiconazoleNystatin

Identifiers

PMID19821309
OpenAlexW4248476507

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.