Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691288›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024

Do Patients With Candidemia Need an Ophthalmologic Examination?

Alice Lehman, Katelyn M Tessier, Victoria Sattarova, Sandra Rocio Montezuma, Susan Kline, Serin Edwin Erayil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Invasive Candidiasis in the Intensive Care Unit: Where Are We Now?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
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

6 authors.

Alice LehmanDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4690-784X
Katelyn M TessierMasonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics Core, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5513-583X
Victoria SattarovaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Neurosciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Sandra Rocio MontezumaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Neurosciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3731-8082
Susan KlineDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Serin Edwin ErayilDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4912-4923

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Timothy C. Hallstrom · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UM1TR004405 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Bruce R Blazar, Damien A Fair · 2023 to 2026
$30.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004405NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends a screening dilated retinal examination by an ophthalmologist for all patients with candidemia. Conversely, the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommends against routine screening in patients with candidemia without symptoms. Methods: In a collaborative effort between infectious diseases and ophthalmology, we examined the incidence of ocular complications in 308 patients with candidemia and subsequently measured the rate of fundoscopic examinations, risk factors for ocular complications, management changes, and outcomes. Results: Among those who received fundoscopic exams, findings suspicious for ocular candidiasis were found in 12 patients (8%, 12/148). After independent review by ophthalmology and infectious diseases, 3 patients were found to have alternate pathologies that explained their ocular findings. Nine patients (6%, 9/148) were adjudicated as having presumed Conclusions: Based on the available evidence and high risk of morbidity of eye involvement, continued ophthalmological screens seem prudent, but a definitive consensus was found to be challenging given a lack of outcome data. Additional investigations are warranted. Ophthalmology screenings have a higher sensitivity at >7 days from positive blood culture.

Indexed as

Candida endophthalmitiscandidemiachorioretinitisocular candidiasisophthalmology screening

Identifiers

PMID39691288
PMCPMC11651149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.