SynthesisAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2025
Antifungal Stewardship in Invasive Fungal Infections, a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic Failure in Invasive Fungal Infections: Beyond Antifungal Resistance-A Narrative Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Failure in Invasive Fungal Infections: Causes, Clinical Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Antifungal Agents in the 21st Century: Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Infectious disease reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInvasive fungal infections (IFI) are a group of life-threatening diseases associated with significant morbidity, mortality and high healthcare costs. Some modern management programs known as AFS (antifungal stewardship programs) have now been developed. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the different declinations of antifungal stewardship programs (AFPs).
methodsArticles were systematically reviewed using the PRISMA checklist 2020. EMBASE and MEDLINE/PubMED were searched using the term "antifungal stewardship" (2012-2022 data) on 2 January 2023. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS and included an intervention, performance evaluation and outcome measures.
resultsA total of 22/796 studies were included. Approximately two-thirds (16) were published between 2018 and 2022. 16 (72.7%) stated a minimal complete AFS team. 12 (54.5%) adopted a non-compulsory AFS approach, 6(27.3%) had an Educational AFS and 4(18.2%) a compulsory AFS. Cost analyses of 12 studies showed a decrease for 7 (31.8%) compared to an increase for 5 (22.7%). In terms of outcomes, 18 studies showed a lower (10;45.5%) or the same (8;36.4%) pre-post intervention mortality rate.
conclusionAFS programs seem to be related to lower costs and better outcomes and should thus be implemented in tandem with antimicrobial stewardship programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38337088What 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.