ReviewMedical mycology2019
Coccidioidomycosis: What a long strange trip it's been.
Review in Medical mycology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug Discovery and Repurposing forJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Overview of the Current Challenges in Pulmonary Coccidioidomycosis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Coccidioides Species: A Review of Basic Research: 2022.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Current Landscape of Coccidioidomycosis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Coccidioidal Peritonitis: A Review of 17 Cases.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Article
- Sociodemographic factors associated with patients hospitalised for coccidioidomycosis in California and Arizona, State Inpatient Database 2005-2011.Epidemiology and infection · 2020Article
- Host-Pathogen Interactions in Coccidioidomycosis: Prognostic Clues and Opportunities for Novel Therapies.Clinical therapeutics · 2019Review
- Coccidioidal Hepatic Abscess in a Patient With Disseminated Coccidioidomycosis: A Case Report.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recorded history of coccidioidomycosis began in 1892 with the report of the illness of Domingo Escurra by Alejandro Posadas followed by a description of the first North American cases by Rixford and Gilchrist. Originally considered a protozoan, William Ophüls determined that Coccidioides was a fungus and that the lungs were the apparent initial site of infection. During the 1930s, both Gifford and Dickson determined that a self-limited illness, Valley Fever, was caused by the same fungus that caused the often fatal coccidioidal granuloma. Charles Smith, over a period of approximately 2 decades, comprehensively described the clinical and geographic epidemiology of coccidioidomycosis in California. Demosthenes Pappagianis continued this work after Smith's death. In 1957, one year before Marshall Fiese published his masterful monograph on coccidioidomycosis, the use of the first effective agent for the therapy of coccidioidomycosis, amphotericin B, was reported. This was followed by descriptions of its appropriate clinical use by William Winn and by Hans Einstein, among others. The development of the much less toxic azole antifungal agents greatly simplified therapy in many cases, but much of the management of patients with coccidioidomycosis still relies more on art than science. The search for the "Holy Grail" - a vaccine capable of preventing this disease-continues.
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.