ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
Predicting invasive fungal disease due to Candida species in non-neutropenic, critically ill, adult patients in United Kingdom critical care units.
Article 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Candida albicans-A systematic review to inform the World Health Organization Fungal Priority Pathogens List.Medical mycology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical predictive models of invasive Candida infection: A systematic literature review.Medical mycology · 2021Pooled it
- Overview of Risk Factors and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Pragmatic Strategy for Improving Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis in UK and Ireland ICUs.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Creating a prediction model for invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit using a case control design: a European multicentre approach.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Identification and assessment of antifungal susceptibility ofIranian journal of microbiology · 2024Article
- Machine Learning in Infectious Disease for Risk Factor Identification and Hypothesis Generation: Proof of Concept Using Invasive Candidiasis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022Article
- State of the Art of Machine Learning-Enabled Clinical Decision Support in Intensive Care Units: Literature Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Review
- Article
- Using Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict Candidaemia in ICU Patients With New-Onset Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Risk factors for candidemia: a prospective matched case-control study.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Observational
- The Overlooked Immune State in Candidemia: A Risk Factor for Mortality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Fungal infections in adult patients on extracorporeal life support.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Article
- Should we continue to use prediction tools to identify patients at risk of Candida spp. infection? If yes, why?Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the predominance of invasive fungal disease (IFD) amongst the non-immunocompromised adult critically ill population, the potential benefit of antifungal prophylaxis and the lack of generalisable tools to identify high risk patients, the aim of the current study was to describe the epidemiology of IFD in UK critical care units, and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at high risk of IFD who would benefit from antifungal prophylaxis.
methodsData on risk factors for, and outcomes from, IFD were collected for consecutive admissions to adult, general critical care units in the UK participating in the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) Study. Three risk prediction models were developed to model the risk of subsequent Candida IFD based on information available at three time points: admission to the critical care unit, at the end of 24 h and at the end of calendar day 3 of the critical care unit stay. The final model at each time point was evaluated in the three external validation samples.
resultsBetween July 2009 and April 2011, 60,778 admissions from 96 critical care units were recruited. In total, 359 admissions (0.6 %) were admitted with, or developed, Candida IFD (66 % Candida albicans). At the rate of candidaemia of 3.3 per 1000 admissions, blood was the most common Candida IFD infection site. Of the initial 46 potential variables, the final admission model and the 24-h model both contained seven variables while the end of calendar day 3 model contained five variables. The end of calendar day 3 model performed the best with a c index of 0.709 in the full validation sample.
conclusionsIncidence of Candida IFD in UK critical care units in this study was consistent with reports from other European epidemiological studies, but lower than that suggested by previous hospital-wide surveillance in the UK during the 1990s. Risk modeling using classical statistical methods produced relatively simple risk models, and associated clinical decision rules, that provided acceptable discrimination for identifying patients at 'high risk' of Candida IFD.
trial registrationThe FIRE Study was reviewed and approved by the Bolton NHS Research Ethics Committee (reference: 08/H1009/85), the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference: 09/MRE00/76) and the National Information Governance Board (approval number: PIAG 2-10(f)/2005).
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.