ReviewDer Internist2015
[Resistant fungi].
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
26432089What 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.