ReviewJRSM open2014
Invasive candidiasis in intensive care unit; consensus statement from an Iranian panel of experts, July 2013.
Review in JRSM open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive Fungal Infections in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Hong Kong Study.Current pediatric reviews · 2024Article
- Risk Factors for Fungal Co-Infections in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Immunosuppressants.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Frequency and co-colonization of vancomycin-resistantNew microbes and new infections · 2021Article
- Candidemia in ColombiaBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2020Article
- Single-tube, dual channel pentaplexing for the identification of Candida strains associated with human infection.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Potent Synergy between Spirocyclic Pyrrolidinoindolinones and Fluconazole against Candida albicans.ChemMedChem · 2015Article
- Invasive candidiasis in non neutropenic critically ill - need for region-specific management guidelines.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2015Review
- Invasive candidiasis in critical care setting, updated recommendations from "Invasive Fungal Infections-Clinical Forum", Iran.World journal of critical care medicine · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive candidiasis (IC) is associated with high mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Timely diagnosis of this potentially fatal condition remains a challenge; on the other hand, the criteria for initiating empirical antifungal therapy in critically ill patients are not well defined in different patient population and ICU settings. Alongside the international guidelines, reaching regional and local consensus on diagnosis and management of IC in ICU setting is essential. This report summarizes our present status of IC management in ICU, considered by a group of Iranian experts in the fields of intensive care and infectious diseases. A round table of 17 experts was held to review the available data and discuss the optimal treatment strategies for IC in critical care setting. Comparative published data on the management of IC were analytically reviewed and the commonly asked questions about the management of IC in ICU were isolated. These questions were interactively discussed by the panel and audience responses were taken to consolidate point-to-point agreement with the panel arriving at consensus in many instances. The responses indicated that patients' risk stratification, clinical discretion, fungal diagnostic techniques and the empirical therapy for IC are likely to save more patients. Treatment options were recommended to be based on the disease severity, prior azole exposure, and the presence of suspected azole-resistant Candida species. This report was reviewed, edited and discussed by all participants to include further evidence-based insights. The panel expects such endorsed recommendations to be soon formulated for implementation across the country.
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.