Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38704761›Full record

ArticleMycopathologia2024

Exploring European Consensus About the Remaining Treatment Challenges and Subsequent Opportunities to Improve the Management of Invasive Fungal Infection (IFI) in the Intensive Care Unit.

Martin Hoenigl, David A Enoch, Dominic Wichmann, Duncan Wyncoll, Andrea Cortegiani

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Mycopathologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Martin HoeniglDivision of Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 15, 8036, Graz, Austria. hoeniglmartin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1653-2824
David A EnochClinical Microbiology & Public Health Laboratory, UK Health Security Agency, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Dominic WichmannDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Duncan WyncollDepartment of Intensive Care, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Andrea CortegianiDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global prevalence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) is increasing, particularly within Intensive Care Units (ICU), where Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. represent the most important pathogens. Diagnosis and management of IFIs becomes progressively challenging, with increasing antifungal resistance and the emergence of rare fungal species. Through a consensus survey focused on assessing current views on how IFI should be managed, the aim of this project was to identify challenges around diagnosing and managing IFIs in the ICU. The current status in different countries and perceived challenges to date amongst a multidisciplinary cohort of healthcare professionals involved in the care of IFI in the ICU was assessed.

methodsUsing a modified Delphi approach, an expert panel developed 44 Likert-scale statements across 6 key domains concerning patient screening and minimal standards for diagnosis of IFIs in ICU; initiation and termination of antifungal treatments and how to minimise their side effects and insights for future research on this topic. These were used to develop an online survey which was distributed on a convenience sampling basis utilising the subscriber list held by an independent provider (M3 Global). This survey was distributed to intensivists, infectious disease specialists, microbiologists and antimicrobial/ICU pharmacists within the UK, Germany, Spain, France and Italy. The threshold for consensus was set at 75%.

resultsA total of 335 responses were received during the five-month collection period. From these, 29/44 (66%) statements attained very high agreement (≥ 90%), 11/44 (25%) high agreement (< 90% and ≥ 75%), and 4/44 (9%) did not meet threshold for consensus (< 75%).

conclusionThe results outline the need for physicians to be aware of the local incidence of IFI and the associated rate of azole resistance in their ICUs. Where high clinical suspicion exists, treatment should start immediately and prior to receiving the results from any diagnostic test. Beta-D-glucan testing should be available to all ICU centres, with results available within 48 h to inform the cessation of empirical antifungal therapy. These consensus statements and proposed measures may guide future areas for further research to optimise the management of IFIs in the ICU.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsIntensive Care UnitsInvasive Fungal InfectionsDisease ManagementEuropeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAntifungal AgentsAspergillosisCandidaemiaDelphi studyIntensive care unitsInvasive fungal infections

Identifiers

PMID38704761
PMCPMC11070387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.