ArticleMycoses2025
Invasive Mould Infections Following Combat-Related Injuries-A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Mycoses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Functional requirements and research advances of antimicrobial hydrogels for combat trauma wound repair].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Review
- Mucorales PCR Testing in Respiratory and Biopsy Samples From Immunocompromised Patients With Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis and Other Mold Infections: Results From a Multicenter ECMM Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Prevalence and diversity of antifungal resistance inAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Recognizing the Early Risk-Based Clinical Manifestations of Mucormycosis: Cornerstones for Improved Survival and Therapeutic Outcomes.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAvailable data on combat wound-related invasive mould infections (IMIs) are limited.
objectivesWe aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of IMIs in casualties of a recent conflict. PATIENTS/
methodsA retrospective study including hospitalised patients with combat-related injuries, fulfilling criteria for wound-related IMI based on Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study definitions. Patient and injury characteristics, management and outcomes are described and compared to previous cohorts. Mould isolates and susceptibility testing results, including the novel agent manogepix, are reported.
resultsOverall, 31 patients (69 mould isolates) were included-resulting in an IMI incidence rate of 1.9%. Blast was the most common injury mechanism (71%), with limb amputations and abdominoperineal injuries in 35% and 45%, respectively. Mould cultures, obtained mostly from lower extremities wounds (62%), were positive in all patients. Most (68%) had poly-mould infections, with Aspergillus and Fusarium species predominating. Overall, non-susceptibility rates of > 50% to newer azoles and 38% to amphotericin B reflected the high proportion of Fusarium spp., A. terreus and A. flavus, with the lowest azole minimal inhibitory concentrations demonstrated with posaconazole. Manogepix displayed good in-vitro activity against all isolates, except for Mucorales species. Two patients (6.5%) died of disseminated IMIs and 19% required amputations. Patients with Mucorales had poorer outcomes (40% mortality/amputation vs. 19% for non-Mucorales).
conclusionsCombat wound-related IMIs are uncommon but carry significant morbidity and mortality. High susceptibility rates to manogepix were observed. Further studies are needed to evaluate optimal surgical approaches and the role of antifungal susceptibility testing in this setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.