Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34552887›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021

Antifungal Pipeline.

Todd Patrick McCarty, Peter G Pappas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Amphotericin B in the Era of New Antifungals: Where Will It Stand?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Azorean Black Tea (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Non-European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Todd Patrick McCartyDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.
Peter G PappasDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many ways, fungal diseases are forgotten or neglected. Given the significantly lower frequency compared to similar bacterial etiologies across the spectrum of infectious syndromes, it makes sense that anti-bacterial agents have seen the bulk of development in recent decades. The vast majority of new antifungal medications approved for use in the past 10 years have been new versions in the same class as existing agents. Clinical mycology is crying out for new mechanisms of action in the setting of rising resistance and emergence of new organisms. Fortunately, this trend appears to be reversing. There are numerous agents in advanced stages of development offering novel dosing regimens and mechanisms of action to combat these threats. Herein we review seven antifungal agents that we hope to see come to market in the coming years to aid physicians in the treatment of mucocutaneous and invasive fungal infections.

Indexed as

Invasive Fungal InfectionsMycosesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsantifungalantimicrobialsaspergillosisCandidafungal infectionsmycology

Identifiers

PMID34552887
PMCPMC8450443

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.