Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9007589›Full record

Trial reportInfection

A randomized study comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B/5-flucytosine for the treatment of systemic Candida infections in intensive care patients.

M Abele-Horn, A Kopp, U Sternberg, A Ohly, A Dauber, W Russwurm, W Büchinger, O Nagengast, P Emmerling

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Infection. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Adverse effects of antifungal therapies in invasive fungal infections: review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2006
    Pooled it
  4. Adverse effects of antifungal therapies in invasive fungal infections: review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2005
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Management of invasive candidiasis in nonneutropenic ICU patients.Therapeutic advances in infectious disease · 2014
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Combination treatment of invasive fungal infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2005
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Combination antifungal therapy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2004
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Abele-HornMax-von-Pettenkofer Institut, München, Germany.
A Kopp
U Sternberg
A Ohly
A Dauber
W Russwurm
W Büchinger
O Nagengast
P Emmerling
München Klinik Schwabing · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this prospective, randomized study fluconazole and amphotericin B/5-flucytosine were compared in the treatment of systemic candidiasis. Seventy-two non-neutropenic intensive care patients with systemic Candida infections were enrolled. Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive fluconazole (400 mg on the first day then 200 mg) and 36 were randomized to amphotericin B/5-flucytosine (1.0-1.5 mg/kg body weight every other day and 3 x 2.5 g flucytosine/day) for 14 days following the diagnosis. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome in regard to the treatment of pneumonia and sepsis: 18/28 of the patients were treated successfully with fluconazole and 17/27 with amphotericin B/5-flucytosine. For the treatment of peritonitis, however, amphotericin B/5-flucytosine was more effective than fluconazole (55% vs. 25%). Furthermore, amphotericin B/5-flucytosine was found to be superior to fluconazole with regard to pathogen eradication (86% vs. 50%). Fluconazole was associated with less toxicity than amphotericin B/5-flucytosine.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCandidiasisCritical CareCross InfectionDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFluconazoleFlucytosineFungemiaHumansMaleMiddle AgedAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsFluconazoleFlucytosine

Identifiers

PMID9007589
OpenAlexW18351075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.