ArticleMedical mycology2026
CAMEO-a cross-sectional survey study on candidemia management in Germany.
Article in Medical mycology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Candida species cause life-threatening bloodstream infections, particularly in critically ill and immunocompromised patients. Although guideline adherence has been shown to improve outcomes, real-world implementation is often constrained. This cross-sectional, web-based survey evaluated current clinical practices and barriers in candidemia management across German healthcare institutions. A structured questionnaire based on the EQUAL Candida score was disseminated online from 10/2023 to 07/2025. Physicians involved in candidemia management reported institutional characteristics, diagnostic practices, antifungal treatment strategies, central line management, and follow-up practices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square testing. A total of 217 physicians from 147 institutions participated, with 74.5% of participants affiliated with large care facilities. Caspofungin was the predominant first-line therapy (81.4%), whereas fluconazole was used by 5.3% of participants. First-line choice did not differ by years of clinical experience (P = 0.194). Echocardiography was routinely performed by 57% of participants; selective use showed no association with years of clinical experience (P = 0.845) or annual number of candidemia cases (P = 0.089). Ophthalmoscopy was performed routinely by 37% of participants and showed no association with experience (P = 0.907), but was significantly associated with lower annual caseload (P = 0.02) and infectious disease speciality (P = 0.003). Central line removal or replacement within 24 h was reported by 82.5%. Follow-up blood cultures were obtained daily by 31.4%, while 54.8% repeated cultures every 48 h. While core candidemia management practices are generally well implemented in German healthcare institutions, certain recommended diagnostic steps remain underutilized. Targeted educational and structural interventions are needed to strengthen guideline adherence and optimize patient outcomes across diverse settings.
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.