ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multiplex PCR with Magnetic Resonance Detection versus Empiric or Blood Culture-Directed Therapy for Management of Suspected Candidemia.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Microbiological Diagnostics for Sepsis: Narrative Review of Current and Prospective Approaches.Critical care explorations · 2026Review
- Early Diagnosis of Candidemia in the Intensive Care Unit by Clinical and Molecular Methods: A Prospective Observational Study.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Rapid alignment-free bacteria identification via optical scattering with LEDs and YOLOv8.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prediction of candidemia with machine learning techniques: state of the art.Future microbiology · 2024Review
- Molecular detection of Citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd), Citrus viroid-III (CVd-III), and Citrus viroid-IV (CVd-IV) in Palestine.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Validation of an Automated System for the Extraction of a Wide Dataset for Clinical Studies Aimed at Improving the Early Diagnosis of Candidemia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Early diagnosis of candidemia with explainable machine learning on automatically extracted laboratory and microbiological data: results of the AUTO-CAND project.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of blood cultures versus T2 Candida Panel in management of candidemia at a large community hospital.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021Observational
- T2Candida for the Diagnosis and Management of InvasiveJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Molecular Diagnosis of Yeast Infections.Current fungal infection reports · 2021Review
- Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Updates in Laboratory Diagnostics for Invasive Fungal Infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Review
- Molecular Diagnostic Advances in Transplant Infectious Diseases.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
- Polymerase Chain Reaction and Its Application in the Diagnosis of Infectious Keratitis.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2019Review
- A New Age in Molecular Diagnostics for Invasive Fungal Disease: Are We Ready?Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Review
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Rapid Diagnostic Testing for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections with or without Antimicrobial Stewardship.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2018Review
- Syndromic Panel-Based Testing in Clinical Microbiology.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2018Review
- Prophylactic Measures During Induction for Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Current oncology reports · 2017Review
- Delivering on Antimicrobial Resistance Agenda Not Possible without Improving Fungal Diagnostic Capabilities.Emerging infectious diseases · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candida bloodstream infections (BSI) are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. Early treatment is essential, because delayed therapy detrimentally impacts clinical outcomes. The FDA recently approved the first culture-independent direct molecular detection method for Candida BSIs (T2Candida). The speed and sensitivity of this assay give it the potential to improve patient care, but the reagents and instrumentation are expensive. We used an analytic decision tree model to compare the cost-effectiveness of T2Candida-directed antifungal therapy (T2DT) to that of either empirical therapy (ET) or blood culture-directed therapy (BCDT). The costs included those of T2Candida testing, antifungal treatment, and hospital length of stay. The effectiveness measure was survival status at hospital discharge. T2DT was less costly and more effective than BCDT but was less costly and less effective than ET with an echinocandin (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $111,084 per additional survivor). One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of T2DT was highly dependent on Candida BSI prevalence and the cost of antifungal therapy and T2Candida test reagents. The use of T2DT reduced the number of unnecessarily treated patients by 98% relative to that with ET. Reduced drug exposure might lessen the possibility of drug-related adverse events and may also prevent the development of antifungal resistance or emergence of drug-resistant Candida species. The greatest benefit of T2Candida appears to be the ability to confidently withhold or stop empirical antifungal therapy in low-to-moderate-risk patients who are unlikely to benefit from treatment.
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.