ReviewEJHaem2025
Invasive Fungal Disease Associated With Targeted Agents for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Systematic Review.
Review in EJHaem, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the incidence of invasive fungal disease (IFD) in patients receiving targeted agents for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Methods: Literature for this systematic review was identified through a PubMed search in April 2024, using AML, IFD and targeted therapy terms. The following filters were applied: published in the last 10 years and published in English. Results: The PubMed search yielded 54 results, of which 16 were deemed relevant for inclusion. Four additional references were identified through manual searches. The majority of publications focused on the incidence of IFD during treatment with targeted agents; the remainder focused on the efficacy of targeted treatments and reported IFD as an adverse event. Most publications were retrospective analyses. Prophylaxis use and agents differed across studies. In several studies, IFD incidence was above the 8% threshold identified for anti-mould prophylaxis. Conclusions: IFD is relatively common among patients with AML receiving targeted therapies, despite the use of prophylaxis. Prospective studies with detailed IFD reporting, together with large epidemiological studies, are required to better understand the risk factors for, and incidence and nature of IFD in this patient population.
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.