Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33050598›Full record

ArticleJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Diagnosis of Breakthrough Fungal Infections in the Clinical Mycology Laboratory: An ECMM Consensus Statement.

Jeffrey D Jenks, Jean-Pierre Gangneux, Ilan S Schwartz, Ana Alastruey-Izquierdo, Katrien Lagrou, George R Thompson Iii, Cornelia Lass-Flörl, Martin Hoenigl, European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) Council Investigators

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis.Clinical epidemiology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Pathogenic Drug Resistant Fungi: A Review of Mitigation Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Foreword.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Jeffrey D JenksDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6632-9587
Jean-Pierre GangneuxUniv Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail)-UMR_S 1085, F-35000 Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4974-5607
Ilan S SchwartzDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7522-0281
Ana Alastruey-IzquierdoMycology Reference Laboratory, National Centre for Microbiology. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Majadahonda, 28222 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8651-4405
Katrien LagrouDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
George R Thompson IiiDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology.
Cornelia Lass-FlörlDivision of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2946-7785
Martin HoeniglDivision of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1653-2824
European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) Council Investigators
Innsbruck Medical University · ATInserm · FRInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESKU Leuven · BEMedical University of Graz · ATUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N006364/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breakthrough invasive fungal infections (bIFI) cause significant morbidity and mortality. Their diagnosis can be challenging due to reduced sensitivity to conventional culture techniques, serologic tests, and PCR-based assays in patients undergoing antifungal therapy, and their diagnosis can be delayed contributing to poor patient outcomes. In this review, we provide consensus recommendations on behalf of the European Confederation for Medical Mycology (ECMM) for the diagnosis of bIFI caused by invasive yeasts, molds, and endemic mycoses, to guide diagnostic efforts in patients receiving antifungals and support the design of future clinical trials in the field of clinical mycology. The cornerstone of lab-based diagnosis of breakthrough infections for yeast and endemic mycoses remain conventional culture, to accurately identify the causative pathogen and allow for antifungal susceptibility testing. The impact of non-culture-based methods are not well-studied for the definite diagnosis of breakthrough invasive yeast infections. Non-culture-based methods have an important role for the diagnosis of breakthrough invasive mold infections, in particular invasive aspergillosis, and a combination of testing involving conventional culture, antigen-based assays, and PCR-based assays should be considered. Multiple diagnostic modalities, including histopathology, culture, antibody, and/or antigen tests and occasionally PCR-based assays may be required to diagnose breakthrough endemic mycoses. A need exists for diagnostic tests that are effective, simple, cheap, and rapid to enable the diagnosis of bIFI in patients taking antifungals.

Indexed as

breakthrough invasive fungal infectionsdiagnosticsendemic mycosesinvasive candidiasisinvasive mold infections

Identifiers

PMID33050598
PMCPMC7712958
OpenAlexW3081623395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.