ArticleCurrent fungal infection reports2013
Advancing the Field: Evidence for New Management Strategies in Invasive Fungal Infections.
Article in Current fungal infection reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trichosporon fungemia in critically ill patients: A case series.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2026Article
- Viscoelastic Separation and Concentration of Fungi from Blood for Highly Sensitive Molecular Diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Serological response and diagnostic value of recombinant candida cell wall protein enolase, phosphoglycerate kinase, and β-glucosidase.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Article
- Article
- Immunoproteome of Aspergillus fumigatus using sera of patients with invasive aspergillosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2014Article
- Diagnostic value of immunoglobulin G antibodies against Candida enolase and fructose-bisphosphate aldolase for candidemia.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the immunocompromised. The traditional diagnostic methods of culture and histological examination lack sensitivity and often only make a diagnosis late when the fungal burden is high, reducing the chances of cure even with the availability of new more potent and less toxic antifungal agents. New non-culture-based serological and PCR assays have been developed. These appear more sensitive and are able to make an earlier diagnosis as compared with traditional diagnostic methods. Early diagnosis is central to reducing IFI-related morbidity and mortality. This review describes the diagnostic potential of the new serological and PCR assays and outlines how these assays have been incorporated into algorithms to improve the management of IFI.
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.