Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22568999›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2012

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis to prevent invasive fungal diseases in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

M C Ethier, M Science, J Beyene, M Briel, T Lehrnbecher, L Sung

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04619147 (Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients Following Stem Cell Transplant), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT04619147 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients Following Stem Cell Transplant

TypeobservationalSponsorPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, AustraliaRan2022 to 2024Enrolled300ConditionsInvasive Fungal Infections, Stem Cell Transplant ComplicationsArmsNo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Azole antifungal resistance in fungal isolates from wastewater treatment plant effluents.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Advances in Supportive Care for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Pathogen-Specific T Cells Beyond CMV, EBV and Adenovirus.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2019
    Review
  20. Advances in the Treatment of Mycoses in Pediatric Patients.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

M C EthierProgram in Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto M5G 1X8, Ontario, Canada.
M Science
J Beyene
M Briel
T Lehrnbecher
L Sung
Hospital for Sick Children · CAGoethe University Frankfurt · DEInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAMcMaster University · CASickKids Foundation · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObjectives were to compare systemic mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

methodsWe searched OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1948-August 2011) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011). Randomised controlled trials of mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer or HSCT patients were included. Primary outcome was proven/probable invasive fungal infections (IFI). Analysis was completed by computing relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model and Mantel-Haenszel method.

resultsFrom 984 reviewed articles, 20 were included in this review. Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduced the number of proven/probable IFI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). Mould-active prophylaxis also decreased the risk of invasive aspergillosis (IA; RR 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.75; P=0.0004) and IFI-related mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96; P=0.03) but is also associated with an increased risk of adverse events (AEs) leading to antifungal discontinuation (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.24-3.07; P=0.004). There was no decrease in overall mortality (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.88-1.13; P=0.96).

conclusionMould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduces proven/probable IFI, IA, and IFI-related mortality in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or HSCT, but increases AE and does not affect overall mortality. (PROSPERO Registration: CRD420111174).

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntifungal AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsChildChild, PreschoolFluconazoleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansInfantMiddle AgedMycosesNeoplasmsAntifungal AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsFluconazole

Identifiers

PMID22568999
PMCPMC3349180
OpenAlexW1976577798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.