ReviewF1000prime reports2015
Empiric/pre-emptive anti-Candida therapy in non-neutropenic ICU patients.
Review in F1000prime reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal therapies for invasive fungal infections in critically ill patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
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
The potential of the systemic antifungal treatment of non-immunocompromised patients with sepsis, extra-digestive Candida colonization and multiple organ failure is unknown, although it represents three out of four antifungal treatments prescribed in intensive care units. It may allow an early treatment of invasive fungal infection at incubation phase, but exposes patients to unnecessary antifungal treatments with subsequent costs and antifungal selection pressure. As early diagnostic tests for invasive candidiasis are still considered insufficient, the potential of this strategy needs to be demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial. Such a trial is currently ongoing.
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.