ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2017
Evaluation of
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCandidemia in critically ill patients is usually a severe and life-threatening condition. Furthermore, due to its nonspecific presentation, it is difficult to diagnose leading to delayed treatment, prolonged hospitalization, and increased health-care costs with increase in morbidity and mortality.
objectivesIn view of lack of data on " MATERIALS AND
methodsThe "
resultsAmong all three bedside risk scoring systems to predict candidemia both Leon score and Wenzel score offered significant discrimination between candidemic and noncandidemic patients with
conclusionLeon scoring system was found to have highest specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and positive likelihood ratio among all. Thus, we might conclude that a Leon score of ≥2.5 was most suitable for diagnosis of candidemia with significant accuracy and shortening of turnaround time when compared to the gold standard of blood culture. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on the subject.
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.