ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Efficacy and safety of antifungal prophylaxis in surgical intensive care unit patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are serious complications among surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, leading to substantial morbidity and mortality. Antifungal prophylaxis and pre-emptive strategies are employed to reduce the risk of such infections, although their effectiveness and safety remain subjects of debate. The present systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials evaluating antifungal prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy in surgical ICU patients. Searches in the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Science Direct databases up to February 2025 identified 11 eligible studies. Pooled analyses demonstrated that antifungal prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of IFIs [risk ratio (RR)=0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78; P<0.0001]. While azoles were effective, polyenes and echinocandins did not show a significant effect. No significant effect on overall mortality was observed (RR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.31; P=0.9186), and there was no increased risk of severe adverse events (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.70-1.36) or liver dysfunction (RR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.31-2.65). The analysis did not reveal strong evidence of publication bias as evaluated by funnel plots. Overall, the results indicated that antifungal prophylaxis appeared to be effective in reducing the risk of IFIs in surgical ICU patients without elevating the risk of serious side effects. The implementation of this therapy should be targeted toward high-risk populations, considering the antifungal type, local resource availability and antimicrobial management parameters. The evidence of prophylaxis therapy in low-risk population is limited, since the majority of included studies in the present meta-analysis analyzed high-risk populations.
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.