Cryptococcus and cryptococcosis in the twenty-first century.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
   Pooled it
2. First molecular typing of cryptococcemia-causing cryptococcus in central-west Brazil.Mycopathologia · 2013
   Article
3. Fungal pathogens-a sweet and sour treat for toll-like receptors.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2012
   Review

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.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as