ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
French intensive care physicians' practices for the management of high-risk patients with invasive candidiasis: results from the multicenter INSPIRE survey.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 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
Background: Candidiasis remains a major global health challenge, with rising incidence and antifungal resistance complicating management. This multicenter survey aimed to describe diagnostic and therapeutic management practices of ICU physicians in France for high-risk invasive candidiasis cases, using randomized clinical case simulations distributed to French ICU physicians via email and academic congresses. Results: A total of 75 physicians completed 283 cases. Overall, clinical suspicion justified diagnostic investigation in 72.1% of cases. Key factors associated with the decision to test for invasive candidiasis included post-abdominal surgery (OR = 3.92; p = 0.002), central venous catheter (OR = 2.28; p = 0.04), parenteral nutrition (OR = 2; p = 0.027), prolonged antibiotic exposure (OR = 1.90; p = 0.041), and physician experience >10 years (OR = 2.79; p = 0.014). Echinocandins were the preferred first-line treatment (88.2%; n = 120/136). Their use was guided by clinical guidelines (78.3%), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile (38.3%), SOFA score (29.2%), patient status (25.8%), and immunosuppression (20%). De-escalation to azoles upon documented mycological susceptibility occurred in 87.5% of cases initially treated with an echinocandin and 60.0% of cases initiated on amphotericin B, primarily after 5 days of treatment (51.2%; n = 64). Conclusions: Patient severity, immunosuppression, and catheter presence were the main factors guiding antifungal treatment decisions Management of confirmed invasive candidiasis was largely consensual among respondents, whereas empirical treatment decisions were heterogeneous. While conclusions are primarily reflective of practice patterns within specialized university hospital centers, the INSPIRE survey highlights the need for enhanced training, broader access to rapid diagnostics, and improved decision-support systems to better harmonize clinical practices.
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.