Observational studyMycoses2026
Testing to Detect Candida auris Colonisation After Intrahospital Transfer From an Endemic Area, a Prospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Mycoses, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent international guidelines lack clear recommendations on the management of non-colonised patients undergoing intra-hospital transfer from the ward in which horizontal transmission of Candida auris is known to occur (defined as endemic for Candida auris) to wards with no horizontal transmission detected (defined as non-endemic wards), particularly regarding the timing and number of screening swabs needed to exclude colonisation.
methodsSingle-center prospective observational study at a tertiary-care hospital in Genoa, Italy, including adults transferred from the C. auris endemic-ICU (eICU) to non-endemic wards between January and December 2024. Patients who tested negative for C. auris colonisation both at eICU admission and at transfer, and who had ≥ 1 screening swab performed post-transfer, were included. Swabs (bilateral axilla/groin) were performed on Days 0-1, 2-3 after transfer, and then weekly, and tested for C. auris with real-time PCR. Patients were considered sufficiently screened to exclude colonisation if they underwent ≥ 2 swabs within the first 4 weeks after transfer.
resultsAmong 462 patients transferred from the eICU, 440 (95.2%) were non-colonised. Among them, 275 (62.5%) met inclusion criteria, and 208 (75.6%) were considered sufficiently screened. C. auris colonisation was detected in 34/208 (16.3%) patients, with 21 (61.8%) positive in the first post-transfer swab. Among 99 patients who had a negative result of a swab performed within 1 day before transfer, 7 (7.1%) resulted later positive. C. auris candidemia occurred in 4/34 (11.8%) patients with colonisation detected post-transfer, compared to 1/35 (2.9%) patients found colonised during eICU stay, and none occurred in non-colonised individuals.
conclusionsA single negative screening test at eICU discharge is insufficient to exclude colonisation, even if performed within 24 h from transfer. Repeated screening, ideally within the first 2 weeks post-transfer, is essential to detect colonisation and prevent further C. auris transmission.
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.