ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2014
Identification and management of invasive mycoses in internal medicine: a road-map for physicians.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis within medical wards and intensive care units: a 4-year retrospective, observational, single-centre study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Do we need to adopt antifungal stewardship programmes?European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2020Article
- The glyoxylate cycle and alternative carbon metabolism as metabolic adaptation strategies of Candida glabrata: perspectives from Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Journal of biomedical science · 2019Review
- Article
- Antibodies against a β-glucan-protein complex of Candida albicans and its potential as indicator of protective immunity in candidemic patients.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Pseudomembranous aspergillar tracheobronchitis in a non-neutropenic critically ill patient in the intensive care unit.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2017Article
- Bloodstream infections in internal medicine.Virulence · 2016Review
- Epidemiological characteristics of bloodstream infections in patients with different degrees of liver disease.Infection · 2015Observational
- Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of candidemia at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.International journal of health sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive mycoses are a rising problem, not only in traditional categories of patients like hematologic or neutropenic ones, but also in elderly non-neutropenic patients admitted to internal medicine wards. Patients being admitted to medical wards are usually older, have multiple comorbidities, e.g., liver cirrhosis or chronic obstructive respiratory disease, may be malnourished or receive peripheral or total parenteral nutrition, and frequently are undergoing chronic corticosteroid therapy, chemotherapy for cancer or monoclonal antibodies for autoimmune diseases. Such risk factors may be contemporarily present in a single patient increasing the risk for the development of invasive mycoses. Diagnosis of candidemia and invasive aspergillosis is particularly difficult in patients hospitalized on medical wards, since symptoms and signs have low specificity, and most diagnostic tests have been only validated in neutropenic hematologic patients, but not in those without neutropenia. Both candidemia and invasive aspergillosis carry significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this paper is to provide a simple guide to physicians for a prompt identification and treatment of patients with possible or suspected invasive mycoses.
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.