Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21803962›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings2011

Current concepts in antifungal pharmacology.

Russell E Lewis

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

125 citing papers in PubMed, 362 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Randomized Phase 2 Study of VT-1161 for the Treatment of Acute Vulvovaginal Candidiasis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2026
    Article
  6. Iturin A disruptsNpj fungal science · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Single-Dose, Intravenous, and Oral Pharmacokinetics of Isavuconazole in Dogs.Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Recent innovations and challenges in the treatment of fungal infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Russell E LewisUniversity of Houston College of Pharmacy and The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. rlewis@uh.edu
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of new antifungal agents (eg, echinocandins, second-generation triazoles) in the past decade has transformed the management of invasive mycoses to the point that drug toxicity is no longer the major limiting factor in treatment. Yet, many of these newer antifungal agents have important limitations in their spectrum of activity, pharmacokinetics, and unique predisposition for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and unusual toxicities associated with long-term use. This article reviews key pharmacological aspects of systemic antifungal agents as well as evolving strategies, such as pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic optimization and therapeutic drug monitoring, to improve the safety and efficacy of systemic antifungal therapy.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, FungalAntifungal AgentsDrug MonitoringDrug Resistance, Multiple, FungalFungiHumansMycosesAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID21803962
PMCPMC3146381
OpenAlexW2085986706

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.