ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
A multisite evaluation of antifungal use in critical care: implications for antifungal stewardship.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pragmatic Strategy for Improving Diagnosis of Invasive Candidiasis in UK and Ireland ICUs.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antifungal stewardship in the UK: where are we now?JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- The Effects of COVID-19 on Antifungal Prescribing in the UK-Lessons to Learn.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Promoting antifungal stewardship through an antifungal multidisciplinary team in a paediatric and adult tertiary centre in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: ICUs are settings of high antifungal consumption. There are few data on prescribing practices in ICUs to guide antifungal stewardship implementation in this setting. Methods: An antifungal therapy (AFT) service evaluation (15 May-19 November 2019) across ICUs at three London hospitals, evaluating consumption, prescribing rationale, post-prescription review, de-escalation and final invasive fungal infection (IFI) diagnostic classification. Results: Overall, 6.4% of ICU admissions (305/4781) received AFT, accounting for 11.41 days of therapy/100 occupied bed days (DOT/100 OBD). The dominant prescribing mode was empirical (41% of consumption), followed by targeted (22%), prophylaxis (18%), pre-emptive (12%) and non-invasive (7%). Echinocandins were the most commonly prescribed drug class (4.59 DOT/100 OBD). In total, 217 patients received AFT for suspected or confirmed IFI; 12%, 10% and 23% were classified as possible, probable or proven IFI, respectively. Hence, in 55%, IFI was unlikely. Proven IFI ( Conclusions: Achieving a better balance between promptly treating IFI patients and avoiding inappropriate antifungal prescribing in the ICU requires timely post-prescription review by specialist multidisciplinary teams and improved, evidence-based-risk prescribing strategies incorporating rapid diagnostics to guide AFT start and stop decisions.
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.