Observational studyMedicine2026
Fungal infections of the lung during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Retrospective observational comparison.
Observational study in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with an increased burden of secondary infections, including fungal infections of the lungs, especially in critically ill patients. However, it is unclear whether this excess risk persisted in the post-pandemic period after infection-control practices and clinical pathways were optimized. This single-center retrospective observational study included 1441 PCR positive COVID-19 patients hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the pandemic. Microbiological investigations, fungal cultures, serum galactomannan antigen tests, and Pneumocystis jirovecii PCR tests were performed. The rates of positive test results for fungal infections were calculated as percentages and statistically compared between the 2 periods. Overall, 99 of 1441 patients (6.9%) had at least 1 positive fungal test. The study findings showed that the positive test results for fungal species declined after the pandemic, from 9.15% to 5.13% for all species, 17.36% to 9.29% for Candida species, and 2.22% to 1.00% for Aspergillus species. The decrease in the positive test result rates for all fungal and Candida species was statistically significant (P = .003 and P = .002, respectively). An increased prevalence of pulmonary fungal infections was observed in patients hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lower fungal positivity observed in the post-pandemic period may reflect changes in the patient case-mix, diagnostic intensity, and evolving clinical and infection-control practices; however, causal inferences cannot be made from this observational analysis. These findings may inform preparedness, infection-control, and stewardship strategies for preventing and managing pulmonary fungal co-infections during future respiratory virus outbreaks.
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.