SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Procalcitonin levels in candidemia versus bacteremia: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Berberine as a Promising Antifungal Agent: Insights into Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potential.ACS omega · 2026Review
- Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prioritizing the patient through a continuum of personalized care: insights from the 2026 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Antifungal Stewardship in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Time is of the Essence.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and Safety of Empirical Antifungal Strategies in Critically Ill, Non-Neutropenic Patients: A Multi-Center Observational Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients: SIAARTI multidisciplinary statement.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- Early-Onset Candidemia in Adult Intensive Care Units.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Optimizing the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients Utilizing Beta-D-glucan: The Time is Now.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical aspects and recent advances in fungal diseases impacting human health.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Article
- Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring Non-Thermal Plasma and UV Radiation as Biofilm Control Strategies against Foodborne Filamentous Fungal Contaminants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Antibiotic and antifungal use in paediatric departments at three academic hospitals in South Africa.IJID regions · 2024Article
- Identifying the risk factors of ICU-acquired fungal infections: clinical evidence from using machine learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis.Clinical epidemiology · 2024Review
- SevereJournal of intensive medicine · 2023Review
- Invasive candidiasis: current clinical challenges and unmet needs in adult populations.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. Early institution of antifungal therapy is pivotal for mortality reduction. Starting a targeted antifungal therapy after culture positivity and fungi identification requires a long time. Therefore, alternative strategies (globally defined as 'untargeted antifungal treatments') for antifungal therapy institution in patients without proven microbiological evidence of fungal infections have been discussed by international guidelines. This review was originally published in 2006 and updated in 2016. This updated review provides additional evidence for the clinician dealing with suspicion of fungal infection in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients, taking into account recent findings in this field.
objectivesTo assess the effects of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) compared to placebo or no antifungal or any other antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) in non-neutropenic, critically ill adults and children. We assessed effectiveness in terms of total (all-cause) mortality and incidence of proven invasive fungal infections as primary outcomes. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the following databases to February 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), and EMBASE (OVID). We also searched reference lists of identified studies and major reviews, abstracts of conference proceedings, scientific meetings and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts in the field, study authors and pharmaceutical companies as part of the search strategy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language or publication status) comparing the use of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) to placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent in non-neutropenic critically ill participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion. We synthesized data using the random-effects model and expressed the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN
resultsWe included 22 studies (total of 2761 participants). Of those 22 studies, 12 were included in the original published review and 10 were newly identified. Eleven trials compared the use of fluconazole to placebo or no antifungal treatment. Three trials compared ketoconazole versus placebo. One trial compared anidulafungin with placebo. One trial compared caspofungin to placebo. Two trials compared micafungin to placebo. One trial compared amphotericin B to placebo. Two trials compared nystatin to placebo and one trial compared the effect of clotrimazole, ketoconazole, nystatin and no treatment. We found two new ongoing studies and four new studies awaiting classification. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range, severity of critical illness and clinical characteristics. Funding sources from pharmaceutical companies were reported in 11 trials and one trial reported funding from a government agency. Most of the studies had an overall unclear risk of bias for key domains of this review (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data). Two studies had a high risk of bias for key domains. Regarding the other domains (blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessment, selective reporting, other bias), most of the studies had a low or unclear risk but four studies had a high risk of bias.There was moderate grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly reduce or increase total (all-cause) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, P value = 0.36; participants = 2374; studies = 19). With regard to the outcome of proven invasive fungal infection, there was low grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced the risk (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, P value = 0.0001; participants = 2024; studies = 17). The risk of fungal colonization was significantly reduced (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, P value = 0.03; participants = 1030; studies = 12) but the quality of evidence was low. There was no difference in the risk of developing superficial fungal infection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.29, P value = 0.24; participants = 662; studies = 5; low grade of evidence) or in adverse events requiring cessation of treatment between the untargeted treatment group and the other group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P value = 0.51; participants = 1691; studies = 11; low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for the outcome of total (all-cause) mortality was moderate due to limitations in study design. The quality of evidence for the outcome of invasive fungal infection, superficial fungal infection, fungal colonization and adverse events requiring cessation of therapy was low due to limitations in study design, non-optimal total population size, risk of publication bias, and heterogeneity across studies. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that the use of untargeted antifungal treatment is not associated with a significant reduction in total (all-cause) mortality among critically ill, non-neutropenic adults and children compared to no antifungal treatment or placebo. The untargeted antifungal treatment may be associated with a reduction of invasive fungal infections but the quality of evidence is low, and both the heterogeneity and risk of publication bias is high.Further high-quality RCTs are needed to improve the strength of the evidence, especially for more recent and less studied drugs (e.g. echinocandins). Future trials should adopt standardized definitions for microbiological outcomes (e.g. invasive fungal infection, colonization) to reduce heterogeneity. Emergence of resistance to antifungal drugs should be considered as outcome in studies investigating the effects of untargeted antifungal treatment to balance risks and benefit.
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.