Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26432089›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2015

[Resistant fungi].

M J G T Vehreschild, O A Cornely

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M J G T VehreschildKlinisches Studienzentrum II für Infektiologie, Klinik I für Innere Medizin, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50924, Köln, Deutschland. maria.vehreschild@uk-koeln.de.
O A CornelyKlinisches Studienzentrum II für Infektiologie, Klinik I für Innere Medizin, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50924, Köln, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Particularly in the area of hematology/oncology and intensive care medicine, infections due to resistant fungi are to be expected. Emergence of resistance in fungi is a less dynamic process than in bacteria; it can, however, have an equally important impact on treatment strategies. In the following article, the most important resistance patterns of yeasts and molds (Candida albicans , Aspergillus fumigatus, the order Mucorales and the genus Fusarium) will be presented and discussed. Their diagnosis mostly being based on blood cultures, resistance testing for yeasts is usually readily available. Culture-based therapeutic adjustments in mold infections are, however, only rarely possible, as most antifungal therapies for these infections are initiated on an empirical basis after identification of typical infiltrates on a CT scan. Response to therapy is then evaluated on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms in combination with follow-up CT scans. In case of therapeutic failure or appearance of suspicious infiltrates under antifungal prophylaxis, an open or CT-guided biopsy is recommended to allow efficient adaptation of antifungal treatment. In individual cases, particularly in patients diagnosed with mucormycosis, resection of the focus of infection may be necessary to achieve a satisfactory treatment response.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsCombined Modality TherapyDiagnosis, DifferentialDrug Resistance, FungalFungiHumansMycosesAntifungal AgentsAntifungal agentsAzole resistanceFungal infections, rareMoldsYeasts

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.