ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Do Patients With Candidemia Need an Ophthalmologic Examination?
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Invasive Candidiasis in Critically Ill Patients: Fundamental Concepts and Future Directions.Chest · 2026Review
- Microbiological etiology of endogenous and exogenous postprocedural endophthalmitis: a 5-year German federal state study.Infection · 2026Article
- Ophthalmologic Evaluation and Clinical Outcome in Candidemia: A 7-Year Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Candidemia: An Update on Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Susceptibility, and Treatment.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Invasive Candidiasis in the Intensive Care Unit: Where Are We Now?Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.