ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2015
Antifungal agent utilization evaluation in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients at a large teaching hospital.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review.Medical care · 2017Pooled it
- The Patterns and Appropriateness of Systemic Antifungal Prescriptions in a Regional Hospital in Hong Kong.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical pharmacist-led antifungal drug utilization reviews in cancer care hospital: a prospective audit and feedback.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
- Identification of Candida Species and Antifungal Susceptibility in Cancer Patients with Oral Lesions in Ahvaz, Southern West of Iran.Advanced biomedical research · 2020Article
- The Frequency, Antifungal Susceptibility and Enzymatic Profiles ofJundishapur journal of microbiology · 2016Article
- Appropriateness of antifungal prescribing in Oman.Pharmacy practiceArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate pattern of using of three antifungal drugs: fluconazole, amphotericin B and voriconazole, at the hematology-oncology and bone marrow transplant wards of one large teaching hospital. In a prospective cross-sectional study, we evaluated the appropriateness of using antifungal drugs in patients, using Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. All the data were recorded daily by a pharmacist in a form designed by a clinical pharmacist and infectious diseases specialist, for antifungals usage, administration, and monitoring. During the study, 116 patients were enrolled. Indications of prescribing amphotericin B, fluconazole, and voriconazole were appropriate according to guidelines in 83.4%, 80.6%, and 76.9% respectively. The duration of treatments were appropriate according to guidelines in 75%, 64.5%, and 71.1% respectively. The dose of voriconazole was appropriate according to guidelines in 46.2% of patients. None of the patients received salt loading before administration of amphotericin B. The most considerable problems with the mentioned antifungals were about the indications and duration of treatment. In addition, prehydration for amphotericin B and dosage of voriconazole were not completely compatible with the mentioned guidelines. A suitable combination of controlling the use of antifungals and educational programs could be essential for improving the general process of using antifungal drugs at our hospital.
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.