ReviewLe infezioni in medicina2022
Invasive cryptococcal disease in COVID-19: systematic review of the literature and analysis.
Review in Le infezioni in medicina, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fungal coinfection/superinfection in COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital in MexicoBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2024Article
- COVID-19 associated with cryptococcosis: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an increasing number of fungal infections associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported. Among them, cryptococcosis could be a life-threatening disease. We performed a Systematic Review (PRISMA Statement) of cryptococcosis and COVID-19 co-infection, case report/series were included: a total of 34 cases were found, then we added our case report. We collected patients' data and performed a statistical analysis comparing two groups of patients sorted by outcome: "dead" and "alive". Three cases were excluded for lack of information. To compare categorical data, we used a Fisher-exact test (α=0.05). To compare quantitative variables a U Mann-Whitney test was used (α=0.05), with a 95% Confidence Interval. A total of 32 co-infected patients were included in the statistical analysis. Mortality rate was 17/32 (53.1%): these patients were included in "dead" group, and 15/32 (46.9%) patients survived and were included in "alive" group. Overall, males were 25/32 (78.1%), the median age was 60 years (IQR 53-70) with non-statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.149 and p=0.911, respectively). Three variables were associated with mortality: ARDS, ICU admission and inadequate treatment. Overall, 21 out of 24 (87.5%) patients were in ARDS with a statistically significant difference among two groups (p=0.028). ICU admission for COVID-19 was observed in 18/26 (69.2%), more frequently among dead group (p=0.034). Finally, 15/32 (46.9%) patients had adequate treatment (amphotericin B + flucytosine for invasive cryptococcosis) mostly among alive patients (p=0.039). In conclusion, mortality due to cryptococcal infection among COVID-19 patients remains high but an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment could reduce 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.