Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41815943›Full record

ReviewGMS hygiene and infection control2026

Fungal spinal infections: a narrative review on diagnosis, treatment strategies, and collaborative management approaches.

Anand Kumar Das, Mainak Sinha, Rijhul Lahariya, Saraj Kumar Singh, Sona Bhardwaj, Simmi Kishore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Anand Kumar DasMCh Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Mainak SinhaDepartment of General Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Rijhul LahariyaMBBS, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Saraj Kumar SinghMCh Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.
Sona BhardwajDepartment of Microbiology, ESIC Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India.
Simmi KishoreDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Spinal fungal infections are rare with a frequency of 2.2 times per 100,000 people annually. They are caused by pathogens such Method: All PubMed articles on fungal spine infections were analysed, regardless of fungus, publication year, or spinal segment. The patient's age, gender, affected spinal section, microorganism, treatment regimens, surgical methods, follow-up period, and results were recorded. Results: Of the 134 analyzed patients, 66.4% were male. The mean age was 54.3±14.9 years. Most susceptible was the lumbar spine (47%), followed by the thoracic (29.9%) and lumbo-sacral (12.7%). The most common organism was Conclusion: The review emphasises the significance of early detection and treatment, individualised antifungal regimens, and surgery in specific cases to enhance fungal spinal infection outcomes. Spine surgeons and radiologists must work together to solve diagnostic and therapeutic issues.

Indexed as

anti-fungal drugsfungal infectionsspine infectionsspondylodiscitisvertebral osteomyelitis

Identifiers

PMID41815943
PMCPMC12973500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.