ReviewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Incidence of
Review in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylaxis Regimens forJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Aerosolized Pentamidine Is an Effective Prophylaxis forJournal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Fragile immunity, fatal foe: A cluster of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia cases in children with haematological malignancies on chemotherapy.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026Article
- Breakthrough Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in an Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipient.Cureus · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- CutaneousEuropean journal of case reports in internal medicine · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) is a first-line
methodWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate breakthrough PCP incidence and adverse reactions in HIV-uninfected immunocompromised patients receiving IVP. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception until 15 December 2022.
resultsThe pooled incidence of breakthrough PCP with IVP was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3-1.4%, 16 studies, 3025 patients) and was similar when used as first-line prophylaxis (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4%, 7 studies, 752 patients). The pooled incidence of adverse reactions was 11.3% (95% CI, 6.7-18.6%, 14 studies, 2068 patients). The pooled adverse event-related discontinuation was 3.7% (95% CI, 1.8-7.3%, 11 studies, 1802 patients), but was lower in patients receiving IVP monthly (2.0%; 95% CI 0.7-5.7%, 7 studies, 1182 patients).
conclusionMonthly IVP is an appropriate second-line agent for PCP prophylaxis in certain non-HIV immunocompromised hosts, especially in patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Using IVP for PCP prophylaxis as an alternative to oral TMP-SMX while patients are unable to tolerate enteral medication administration is feasible.
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.