ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Epidemiology of source-related candidaemia and breakthrough candidaemia in intensive care units.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA review of the literature reveals that there is no descriptive epidemiological study based on the source of candidaemia in intensive care units(ICUs). In addition to that the number and scope of studies evaluating breakthrough candidaemia in ICUs are limited. The primary objective of this study was to analyse the epidemiology of candidaemia in our ICUs based on the source of each case, and the secondary aim was to evaluate breakthrough candidaemia.
methods141 adult patients(≥ 18 years) who had Candida spp. growth in their blood cultures 48 h after admission to an ICU were included in the study. Statistical comparisons were made between groups for abdominal, central venous catheter and primary candidaemia. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsIn the classification based on the sources of candidaemia, 52 (37%) were abdominal, 32 (23%) were central venous catheter-related, 55 (39%) were primary candidaemia and 2 (1%) were urinary tract-related. Total parenteral nutrition use rates were significantly lower in primary candidaemia than in abdominal candidaemia (p < 0.001). Steroid use rates were significantly higher in primary candidaemia than in abdominal candidaemia (p = 0.021). Mortality rates on days 14 and 28 did not differ significantly according to the source of infection. Beakthrough candidaemia rates were significantly higher in abdominal candidaemia. The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II) score at ICU admission was significantly higher in the breakthrough candidaemia(p = 0.037).
conclusionsA significant proportion of candidemia cases in our intensive care units were non-catheter-related candidemia. Breakthrough candidaemia was found to be more common in patients with high APACHE-II scores at ICU admission and in candidaemia originating from the abdomen.
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.