SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Optimizing antifungal therapy: a systematic review of pharmacist interventions, stewardship approaches, and outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Antifungal Use Through Interdisciplinary Intervention in the Hematology Unit.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From the Ground to the Clinic: The Evolution and Adaptation of Fungi.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pharmacological Management of Oral and Esophageal Candidiasis: A Clinical Pharmacotherapy Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Knowledge and usage patterns of clotrimazole vaginal cream and tablet amongst females: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Specific evidence regarding the pharmacist's role in antifungal stewardship (AFS) is emerging. This review aims to identify pharmacist-driven AFS interventions to optimize antifungal therapy. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data (2018-2023) were collected through Google Scholar and PubMed. The collected data were presented descriptively due to variations in interventions and outcome metrics. Conclusions were derived through a qualitative synthesis of the identified findings. Results: A total of 232 articles were retrieved, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 were included in the review. Among the eight studies evaluating the impact of pharmacist interventions on antifungal consumption, 6 studies reported a significant decline in defined daily dose (DDD)/1,000 patient days and days of therapy (DOT)/1,000 patient days, one reported a non-significant decrease, and one reported an increase in the utilization of echinocandins. Educational intervention was the most commonly used stewardship approach. Nineteen studies reported data on various clinical outcomes. Mortality and length of hospital stay remain non-significant, but the occurrence of ADR decreased significantly, and the quality of antifungal use improved significantly. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led AFS has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of antifungal treatments by improving their overall quality, reduction in consumption, and adverse events. The healthcare system should encourage multidisciplinary collaboration where pharmacists play a central role in decision-making processes regarding antifungal use.
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.