ArticleInfection2018
A prediction rule for early recognition of patients with candidemia in Internal Medicine: results from an Italian, multicentric, case-control study.
Article in Infection, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical predictive models of invasive Candida infection: A systematic literature review.Medical mycology · 2021Pooled it
- Observational
- Overview of Risk Factors and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development of a new clinical prediction rule for candidaemia.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Post-Prescription Audit Plus Beta-D-Glucan Assessment Decrease Echinocandin Use in People with Suspected Invasive Candidiasis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- The Overlooked Immune State in Candidemia: A Risk Factor for Mortality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIncreasing prevalence of candidemia in Internal Medicine wards (IMWs) has been reported in recent years, but risk factors for candida bloodstream infection in patients admitted to IMW may differ from those known in other settings. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors and define a prediction rule for the early recognition of the risk of candidemia in IMW inpatients.
methodsThis was a multicentric, retrospective, observational case-control study on non-neutropenic patients with candidemia admitted to IMWs of four large Italian Hospitals. Each eligible patient with candidemia (case) was matched to a control with bacteremia. Stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed.
resultsOverall, 300 patients (150 cases and 150 controls) were enrolled. The following factors were associated with an increased risk of candidemia and weighted to build a score: total parenteral nutrition (OR 2.45, p = 0.008; 1 point); central venous catheter (OR 2.19, p = 0.031; 1 point); peripherally inserted central catheter (OR 5.63, p < 0.0001; 3 points), antibiotic treatment prior (OR 2.06; p = 0.059; 1 point) and during hospitalization (OR2.38, p = 0.033; 1 point); neurological disability (OR 2.25, p = 0.01; 1 point); and previous hospitalization within 3 months (OR 1.56, p = 0.163; 1 point). At ROC curve analysis, a final score ≥ 4 showed 84% sensitivity, 76% specificity, and 80% accuracy in predicting the risk of candidemia.
conclusionsThe proposed scoring system showed to be a simple and highly performing tool in distinguishing bloodstream infections due to Candida and bacteria in patients admitted to IMW. The proposed rule might help to reduce delay in empirical treatment and improve appropriateness in antifungal prescription in septic 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.