Fungicidal versus fungistatic therapy of invasive <i>Candida</i> infection in non-neutropenic adults: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether fungicidal versus fungistatic pharmacotherapy of invasive candidiasis/candidemia yields superior outcomes.Data sources included MEDLINE (1966–June 2017), EMBASE (1980–June 2017), PubMed (1966–June 2017), Global Health-Ovid (inception to June 2017), LILACS Virtual Health Library (inception to June 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to 2nd quarter 2017). The ClinicalTrial.gov database, the SCOPUS database, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature) and Google Scholar were also utilised to search for relevant studies.Randomised studies of any pharmacotherapy of invasive candidiasis including candidemia using a fungicidal (amphotericin B or echinocandin compound) versus a fungistatic (triazole) compound in adolescent or adult non-neutropenic patients. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria.Pooled odds ratios demonstrated an advantage of fungicidal therapy with respect to early therapeutic success (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27–2.03, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%) and persistence or recurrence of infection (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35–0.74, p = 0.0005, I2 = 0%) but no advantage for late survival (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77–1.21, p = 0.77, I2 = 0%).Fungicidal therapy of invasive candidiasis and candidemia is associated with a higher probability of early therapeutic success and decreased probability of persistent or recurrent infection. However, there is no improvement in survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".