ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020
Levels of evidence supporting clinical practice guidelines on invasive aspergillosis.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Series, 2: Management and Prevention of Aspergillosis in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2021Guideline
- Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.Oncology research · 2024Article
- Quality of evidence supporting Surviving Sepsis Campaign Recommendations.Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a severe life-threatening infection with challenges in therapy. The aim was to evaluate the level of evidence (LOE) supporting recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of IA and changes over time. Search on CPG on IA released between 2000 and 2019 was done. Last versions were evaluated and compared with previous versions. Recommendations were classified by LOE as A (multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) or meta-analysis), B (data from a single RCT or observational studies), or C (observational studies with limitations, case series, or expert opinion). Diagnosis recommendations were excluded. Five CPG from three groups of scientific societies were identified: the 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS), 2017 European Society of Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases/European Confederation of Medical Mycology/European Respiratory Society (ESCMID/ECMM/ERS), 2018 Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) CPGs, and their previous versions (2008 IDSA/ATS and 2011 GEMICOMED/SEIMC). ECMID/ECMM/ERS have not published any previous version. From 511 recommendations analyzed, 80 were classified as LOE A (15.7%), 223 LOE B (43.6%), and 208 LOE C (40.7%). Among 238 strong recommendations, only 57 (24.0%) were supported by LOE A. When comparing recent CPGs with previous versions, the proportion of recommendations supported by LOE A did not significantly increase over time (IDSA/ATS: 13.3% [2016] vs. 14.8% [2008], p = 0.798; and SEIMC: 22.6% [2018] vs. 19% [2011], p = 0.568). In conclusion, IA is a condition with an urgent unmet clinical need for more high-quality randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31901113What 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.