Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27612566›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016

Predicting invasive fungal disease due to Candida species in non-neutropenic, critically ill, adult patients in United Kingdom critical care units.

Jason Shahin, Elizabeth J Allen, Krishna Patel, Hannah Muskett, Sheila E Harvey, Jonathan Edgeworth, Christopher C Kibbler, Rosemary A Barnes, Sharmistha Biswas, Neil Soni and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Overview of Risk Factors and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Jason ShahinIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK.
Elizabeth J AllenDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Krishna PatelIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK.
Hannah MuskettIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK.
Sheila E HarveyIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK.
Jonathan EdgeworthSt Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Christopher C KibblerRoyal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Rosemary A BarnesCardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Sharmistha BiswasMcGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Neil SoniChelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Kathryn M RowanIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK.
David A HarrisonIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Napier House, 24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ, UK. david.harrison@icnarc.org.
FIRE Study Investigators
Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBMcGill University · CAThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 07/29/01
6 · The paper itself

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

Antibiotic ProphylaxisAgedAntifungal AgentsCandidaCandida albicansCandidemiaCandidiasisCandidiasis, InvasiveCritical IllnessFemaleHumansIncidenceIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentAntifungal AgentsCandidaCritical careFungalInvasive fungal diseaseProphylaxis

Identifiers

PMID27612566
PMCPMC5016930
OpenAlexW2516225617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.