ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of Quantitative Differences of Classic Methods, Fungal Biomarkers, and T2Candida for Assessing the Central Venous Catheter Origin of Candidemia.
Article in Open forum 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study was conducted to investigate the diagnostic value of fungal biomarker differentials and T2Candida polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from catheter and peripheral blood samples and to re-evaluate classical conservative methods, such as differential time to positivity of blood cultures (BCs), for the early identification of catheter-related candidemia (CRC) before catheter removal. Methods: This prospective study was conducted (March 2023-April 2025) in 2 tertiary hospitals in Spain and Italy. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with candidemia and a central venous catheter in place at diagnosis were included, provided catheter removal occurred within 48 hours of index BC positivity. CRC was defined in patients with candidemia who showed 1 or 2 of the following criteria in the catheter tip: (1) ≥ 15 CFU/plate (Maki technique) or ≥ 1000 CFU/mL (sonication) and (2) any Results: Of 179 episodes of candidemia reviewed, 28 (15.6%) met the inclusion criteria (13 in Spain, 15 in Italy). CRC was confirmed in 11 patients (39.3%) using criterion 1 and in 15 patients (53.6%) using criterion 2. BDG differentials (any difference) demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy as follows: sensitivity 81.82%, specificity 82.35%, positive predictive value 75.00%, negative predictive value 87.50%, and overall accuracy 82.14% (criterion 1). However, stricter BDG thresholds (≥20 or ≥30 pg/mL) and the application of criterion 2 reduced the sensitivity. Other biomarkers and T2Candida PCR demonstrated low sensitivity (0%-40%) and variable specificity (25%-100%), with overall accuracies of <64%. Differential time to positivity of BCs yielded a sensitivity of 72.73% and a specificity of 52.94%, with limited accuracy. Conclusions: None of the investigated methods achieved sufficient accuracy to diagnose CRC without catheter removal. Despite the limited sample size, this study emphasizes the limitations of current diagnostic approaches and the need for novel tools for reliable noninvasive identification of CRC.
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.