SynthesisMedical mycology2021
Clinical predictive models of invasive Candida infection: A systematic literature review.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of prediction models and meta-analysis of risk factors for invasive fungal infection in children.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Overview of Risk Factors and Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Optimize the Early Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Utilization of Intensive Care Interventions in Critically Ill Patients With Candidemia Versus Bacteremia: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Machine Learning in Infectious Disease for Risk Factor Identification and Hypothesis Generation: Proof of Concept Using Invasive Candidiasis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Synthesis and Study of Antifungal Properties of New Cationic Beta-Glucan Derivatives.Pharmaceuticals (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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.