ArticlePloS one2017
Is routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients?
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Ocular Candidiasis and Candida Endophthalmitis in Patients With Candidemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Nonintensive Care Unit Candidemia: Subanalysis of the ECMMOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Trial
- Ophthalmic Evaluation and Ocular Candidiasis in Patients with Candidemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study from Thailand.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ophthalmologic Evaluation and Clinical Outcome in Candidemia: A 7-Year Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Endogenous fungal endophthalmitis: international, multicentre, retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes following surgical and medical management, and screening.Eye (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Comparative effectiveness of echinocandins and liposomal amphotericin B for fluconazole-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Observational
- Do Patients With Candidemia Need an Ophthalmologic Examination?Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Invasive candidiasis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- From Bedside to Diagnosis: The Role of Ocular Fundus in Systemic Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Adjunctive Diagnostic Studies Completed Following Detection of Candidemia in Children: Secondary Analysis of Observed Practice From a Multicenter Cohort Study Conducted by the Pediatric Fungal Network.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2023Article
- Clinical Features and Outcomes of Persistent Candidemia Caused byMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Ophthalmologic Examination and Echocardiography Should be the Essential Components of Candidemia Bundle.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Analyzing Adherence to the 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Candidemia in Cancer Patients.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- The Incidence of Ocular Complications in Candidemic Patients and Implications for the Practice of Routine Eye Exams.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Fungal Endophthalmitis: An Update.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Utility of EQUAL Candida Score in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Candidemia.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prognostic factors ofLancet regional health. Americas · 2022Article
- Effect of first-line antifungal treatment on ocular complication risk inBMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2020Review
- Efficacy of a "Checklist" Intervention Bundle on the Clinical Outcome of Patients with Candida Bloodstream Infections: A Quasi-Experimental Pre-Post Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine among patients with candidemia the real rate of ophthalmoscopy and the impact of performing ocular assessment on the outcome of the disease. We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, population-based candidemia surveillance program implemented in Spain during 2010-2011 (CANDIPOP). Ophthalmoscopy was performed in only 168 of the 365 patients with candidemia (46%). Ocular lesions related to candidemia were found in only 13/168 patients (7.7%), of whom 1 reported ocular symptoms (incidence of symptomatic disease in the whole population, 0.27% [1/365]). Ophthalmological findings led to a change in antifungal therapy in only 5.9% of cases (10/168), and performance of the test was not related to a better outcome. Ocular candidiasis was not associated with a worse outcome and progressed favorably in all but 1 evaluable patient, who did not experience vision loss. The low frequency of ophthalmoscopy and ocular involvement and the asymptomatic nature of ocular candidiasis, with a favorable outcome in almost all cases, lead us to reconsider the need for systematic ophthalmoscopy in all candidemic patients.
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.