Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34302351›Full record

SynthesisMedical mycology2021

Clinical predictive models of invasive Candida infection: A systematic literature review.

Adriana M Rauseo, Abdullah Aljorayid, Margaret A Olsen, Lindsey Larson, Kim L Lipsey, William G Powderly, Andrej Spec

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical mycology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Overview of Risk Factors and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors.

Adriana M RauseoDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9555-2550
Abdullah AljorayidDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Margaret A OlsenDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Lindsey LarsonDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Kim L LipseyBernard Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
William G PowderlyDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Andrej SpecDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7612-4710

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences UL1TR002345NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical predictive models (CPM) serve to identify and categorize patients into risk categories to assist in treatment and intervention recommendations. Predictive accuracy and practicality of models varies depending on methods used for their development, and should be evaluated. The aim of this study was to summarize currently available CPM for invasive candidiasis, analyze their performance, and assess their suitability for use in clinical decision making. We identified studies that described the construction of a CPM for invasive candidiasis from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Data extracted included: author, data source, study design, recruitment period, characteristics of study population, outcome types, predictor types, number of study participants and outcome events, modelling method, and list of predictors used in the final model. Calibration and discrimination in the derivative datasets were used to assess the performance of each model. Ten articles were identified in our search and included for full text review. Five models were developed using data from ICUs, and five models included all hospitalized patients. The findings of this review highlight the limitations of currently available models to predict invasive candidiasis, including lack of generalizability, difficulty in everyday clinical use, and overly optimistic performance. There are significant concerns regarding predictive performance and usability in every day practice of existing CPM to predict invasive candidiasis.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPrognosisCandidiasis, InvasiveHumansPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentCandidacandidemiaclinical predictive modelmortalityrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID34302351
PMCPMC8604268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.