ArticleThe journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG2011
A review of Candida prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care population.
Article in The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive Candida Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Risk Factors and New Insights in Prevention.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of fluconazole prophylaxis in extremely low birth weight infants: multicenter pre-post cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the efficacy and safety of antifungal prophylaxis in the neonatal intensive care setting. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature was accessed using MEDLINE (January 1988- December 2010). The following Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms were used: "amphotericin B," "fluconazole," "nystatin," "itraconazole," "caspofungin," "voriconazole," "Candida," "prevention and control," and "critically ill." Literature was further limited to studies focusing on patient birth to 6 months of age. Abstracts and original research articles were included. Preference was given to published controlled trials. Articles providing descriptions of the safety and effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in neonatal intensive care patients were also used in this review.
resultsTwenty-two studies have evaluated the impact of antifungal prophylaxis on Candida colonization or invasive infections in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The two antifungal agents most commonly studied were nystatin and fluconazole. All of the nystatin studies demonstrated that nystatin is effective at reducing fungal colonization and invasive fungal infections. All of the studies designed to evaluate the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on fungal colonization demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of fungal colonization with fluconazole prophylaxis. A total of 12 of 16 studies that evaluated the impact of fluconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of invasive fungal infections demonstrated a reduction in invasive fungal infections with fluconazole prophylaxis. Two studies found no difference between fluconazole and nystatin when used for prophylaxis.
conclusionAntifungal prophylaxis appears to be effective in reducing the incidence of Candida colonization and invasive Candida infections in the NICU. Antifungal prophylaxis also appears to be safe in the NICU population. The impact of antifungal prophylaxis on resistance patterns could be significant and needs to be evaluated long term before widespread prophylaxis can be recommended.
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.