Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28496146›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2017

The antifungal pipeline: a reality check.

John R Perfect

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 409 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
409citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
40.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

409 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 817 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluation of Curcumin inPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article

349 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John R PerfectDuke University Medical Center, 200 Trent Drive, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

Pathobiology of C. neoformans in the Central Nervous SystemR01AI073896 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI PERFECT, JOHN R. · 2008 to 2018
$4.4M
Evolution of Cryptococcus neoformans Strains from Patients with HIV/AIDSR01AI093257 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI PERFECT, JOHN R. · 2011 to 2022
$3.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI073896NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI093257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive fungal infections continue to appear in record numbers as the immunocompromised population of the world increases, owing partially to the increased number of individuals who are infected with HIV and partially to the successful treatment of serious underlying diseases. The effectiveness of current antifungal therapies - polyenes, flucytosine, azoles and echinocandins (as monotherapies or in combinations for prophylaxis, or as empiric, pre-emptive or specific therapies) - in the management of these infections has plateaued. Although these drugs are clinically useful, they have several limitations, such as off-target toxicity, and drug-resistant fungi are now emerging. New antifungals are therefore needed. In this Review, I discuss the robust and dynamic antifungal pipeline, including results from preclinical academic efforts through to pharmaceutical industry products, and describe the targets, strategies, compounds and potential outcomes.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalAnimalsAntifungal AgentsDrug Resistance, FungalHumansInvasive Fungal InfectionsModels, BiologicalMolecular Targeted TherapyAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID28496146
PMCPMC5760994
OpenAlexW2612278270

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.