ReviewBMC infectious diseases2016
Lomentospora prolificans endocarditis--case report and literature review.
Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endocarditis Due toOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- DisseminatedASM case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Emerging Fungal Infections of the Central Nervous System in the Past Decade: A Literature Review.Infectious disease reports · 2024Review
- Scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis: modern perspectives on these difficult-to-treat rare mold infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Fungal Endocarditis: Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- A Repertoire of Clinical Non-Dermatophytes Moulds.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
- DisseminatedJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2021Article
- Dual fungal infection withClinical case reports · 2021Article
- Review
- Identification of microbial agents in tissue specimens of ocular and periocular sarcoidosis using a metagenomics approach.F1000Research · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLomentospora prolificans (formally Scedosporium prolificans) is an environmental mould with a global distribution. Endocarditis caused by L. prolificans is a rare but serious emerging disease in immunocompromised patients. Prior to this case there have only been eight cases reported in the literature. Diagnosis can be challenging and there are no evidence-based guidelines for treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a 75-year-old woman with ovarian carcinoma who presented with fever after chemotherapy. Repeated sterile site cultures remained negative until day 22 of admission, when Lomentospora prolificans was isolated from blood cultures. Following extensive investigations, including Fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and transoephageal echocardiography (TOE), the patient was diagnosed with endocarditis complicated by cerebral emboli. The patient was considered unsuitable for surgical intervention and passed away five days after the fungus was isolated.
conclusionEndocarditis caused by Lomentospora prolificans is a rare but emerging condition, with limited treatment options and a high mortality. Awareness of the increasing incidence of Lomentospora prolificans infection, diagnosed often at an advanced stage, with potential for endocarditis may prompt earlier echocardiography or FDG-PET imaging. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal combination and duration of anti-fungal agents, used in conjunction with aggressive surgical excision where feasible.
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.