ReviewAdvances in respiratory medicine2023
Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Lights and Shadows in the Current Landscape.
Review in Advances in respiratory medicine, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Patients With or Without COVID-19 and Without Hematological Diseases Treated for Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study with Propensity-Based Adjustment.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 and Fungal Coinfections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.Iranian journal of pathology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) presents a known risk to critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2; quantifying the global burden of IPA in SARS-CoV-2 is extremely challenging. The true incidence of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and the impact on mortality is difficult to define because of indiscriminate clinical signs, low culture sensitivity and specificity and variability in clinical practice between centers. While positive cultures of upper airway samples are considered indicative for the diagnosis of probable CAPA, conventional microscopic examination and qualitative culture of respiratory tract samples have quite low sensitivity and specificity. Thus, the diagnosis should be confirmed with serum and BAL GM test or positive BAL culture to mitigate the risk of overdiagnosis and over-treatment. Bronchoscopy has a limited role in these patients and should only be considered when diagnosis confirmation would significantly change clinical management. Varying diagnostic performance, availability, and time-to-results turnaround time are important limitations of currently approved biomarkers and molecular assays for the diagnosis of IA. The use of CT scans for diagnostic purposes is controversial due to practical concerns and the complex character of lesions presented in SARS-CoV-2 patients. The key objective of management is to improve survival by avoiding misdiagnosis and by initiating early, targeted antifungal treatment. The main factors that should be considered upon selection of treatment options include the severity of the infection, concomitant renal or hepatic injury, possible drug interactions, requirement for therapeutic drug monitoring, and cost of therapy. The optimal duration of antifungal therapy for CAPA is still under debate.
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.