ArticleMycoses2026
The Underestimated Role of Environmental Factors in the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Disease: Experience From a European Childhood Cancer Centre.
Article in Mycoses, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmunocompromised children with hematologic malignancies or undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are at high risk for invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). Reported incidence varies considerably due to heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, antifungal strategies and environmental conditions. Environmental preventive measures, although highly relevant, remain underrecognised determinants of IFD incidence.
methodsThis retrospective, single-centre trial included paediatric cancer or transplant patients at high risk for IFD treated before (Cohort 1) and after (Cohort 2) relocation of a paediatric cancer centre from a 1990s building to a state-of-the-art facility with improved environmental protection standards (observation periods: 56 and 12 months, respectively). Antifungal prophylaxis continuously followed local standards. IFD was diagnosed according to 2019 EORTC/MSGERC criteria. Primary endpoint was IFD incidence; secondary endpoints included prophylaxis use, IFD management and mortality.
resultsThis study included 186 patients (Cohort 1: n = 140; Cohort 2: n = 46). Baseline characteristics were comparable between both cohorts. Adherence to prophylaxis standards exceeded 98%, with liposomal amphotericin B being the most common agent. In Cohort 1, 25 possible, probable, or proven IFD occurred, mainly pulmonary aspergillosis, whereas no cases were observed following implementation of environmental measures in Cohort 2 (17.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.002). Most IFD cases occurred in HSCT recipients. IFD was associated with increased mortality (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsIn this contemporary paediatric cancer and transplant setting, environmental protective measures were associated with a marked reduction in IFD incidence, complementing consistent pharmacologic prophylaxis. These findings underscore environmental protection as essential for IFD prevention in high-risk paediatric populations.
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.