ArticleJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2025
External Validation of Risk Prediction Score for Candidemia in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Observational
- Impact of COVID-19 and earthquake disaster on candidemia in the ICU: mortality and treatment outcomes.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Community-Onset Fungemias: Epidemiology and Genomic Characterization at a Tertiary-Care Hospital in Barcelona, Spain.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Shifting Paradigms in Antifungal Prophylaxis and Their Effects on Candidemia Outcomes in Hematological Malignancies: A 14-Year Experience from a Single Tertiary Center.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Candidemia is associated with high mortality in critically ill patients. Early diagnosis of candidemia is imperative for starting treatment. Therefore, this study was designed to externally validate the candidemia risk prediction scores. This single-center, retrospective observational study included all critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit at a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to December 2023. The risks and patient outcomes were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate regression analysis. A total of 500 patients were analyzed with 2 dropouts due to incomplete data. Candidemia incidence was 8.86%, with parenteral nutrition and candida colonization identified as independent risk factors. Compared to an established risk prediction score, this study demonstrated a sensitivity of 75.0% [59.7-86.8], a specificity of 65.4% [60.8-69.8], a negative predictive value of 96.4% [94.2-97.8], and a positive predictive value of 17.3% [14.5-20.5]. The candidemia group had a significantly higher mean SOFA score, longer time in ICU, longer hospital length of stay, and higher rates of both ICU and in-hospital mortality. This study shows that the risk prediction score is more effective as a tool for excluding rather than predicting candidemia. We recommend against using it as the sole diagnostic guide.
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.