Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021
Comparison of blood cultures versus T2 Candida Panel in management of candidemia at a large community hospital.
Observational study in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Quantitative Differences of Classic Methods, Fungal Biomarkers, and T2Candida for Assessing the Central Venous Catheter Origin of Candidemia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Management of Intra-Abdominal Candidiasis in Intensive Care Setting: A Narrative Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Unresolved issues in the diagnosis of catheter related candidemia: A position paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Review
- Accuracy and Impact on Patient Management of New Tools for Diagnosis of Sepsis: Experience with the T2 Magnetic Resonance Bacteria Panel.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The T2 Candida Panel (T2CP) has high sensitivity and specificity to detect candidemia. Its role in the diagnosis and management of candidemia compared to blood cultures (BC) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the T2CP versus BC in detecting and treating candidemia. A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes in patients with candidemia identified by BC versus T2CP. Patients with a positive BC or T2CP for Candida spp. from January 2012 to August 2020 were grouped by initial method of detection (BC vs T2CP). Co-primary endpoints assessed included time to detection of candidemia and time to antifungal therapy. Key secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and mortality. One hundred sixty-three patients with a positive BC and 89 patients with a positive T2CP were included in the evaluation. The average time to detection of candidemia was significantly shorter in the T2CP group compared to BC group (9 vs 41 h, p < 0.001). The time to antifungal was also significantly shorter in the T2CP group compared to the BC group (4 vs 37 h, p < 0.001). However, LOS was significantly shorter in the BC positive group than the T2CP group with no difference in ICU LOS. There was no difference in in-hospital or 30-day mortality between the two groups. Of patients diagnosed with candidemia at our large community hospital, identification by T2CP led to faster detection and initiation of antifungal compared to blood cultures without improvement in LOS or mortality.
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.