ReviewDrugs2009
Antifungal prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy.
Review in Drugs, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive fungal disease in patients with end-stage liver disease.Infectious diseases & immunity · 2026Review
- Early-Onset Candidemia in Adult Intensive Care Units.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Population pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in liver transplantation: implications for target attainment for infections with Candida albicans and non-albicans spp.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Similar efficacy of broad-range ITS PCR and conventional fungal culture for diagnosing fungal infections in non-immunocompromised patients.BMC microbiology · 2016Article
- Effect of CYP3A5 and ABCB1 polymorphisms on the interaction between tacrolimus and itraconazole in patients with connective tissue disease.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Guideline for diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal infection post burn injury in China 2013.Burns & trauma · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several reports have underlined the increasing role of fungal infections as a cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized non-haematological patients. For this reason, and also in light of the high mortality rate associated with these infections, chemoprophylaxis has been advocated for surgical patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). The available evidence suggests that the triazoles fluconazole and itraconazole are able to decrease Candida colonization and possibly infection compared with placebo, but this result has only been obtained in high-risk patients undergoing repeated surgical procedures for tertiary peritonitis. Consequently, triazole antifungal prophylaxis should be used with caution, and only in patients at high risk of invasive candidiasis, including high-risk surgical and ICU patients. A pre-emptive approach, defined as initiating antifungal treatment without confirmation of fungal infection, seems to be effective and safe.
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.