Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21744150›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2011

[Innovative antifungals for treatment of invasive fungal infections].

A Glöckner

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

A GlöcknerBDH-Klinik Greifswald GmbH, Deutschland. a.gloeckner@bdh-klinik-greifswald.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive fungal infections have gained importance in many areas of clinical medicine and represent a growing diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians. During the last decade, several new antifungals were introduced into routine therapy: two second-generation triazoles and the new class of echinocandins. These innovative drugs showed convincing efficacy and favorable safety in randomized clinical trials. Consequently, they were integrated in recent therapeutic guidelines, often replacing former standard drugs as first-line options. The echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin) primarily have gained a central role in the treatment of invasive Candida infections, while the novel triazoles voriconazole and posaconazole established themselves as the current mainstays in therapy and prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections, particularly aspergillosis, in hemato-oncologic high-risk patients.

Indexed as

AdultAntifungal AgentsCandidiasis, InvasiveChildChild, PreschoolDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleDrug InteractionsEchinocandinsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfusions, IntravenousMycosesPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntifungal AgentsEchinocandins

Identifiers

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.