4.6 Article

Is routine ophthalmoscopy really necessary in candidemic patients?

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183485

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion SEIMC-GESIDA (Sociedad Espanola de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia Clinica-Grupo de Estudio de SIDA)
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Institute de Salud Carlos III
  3. European Development Regional Fund
  4. Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases [REIPI RD12/0015]
  5. PROgrama MULtidisciplinar para la Gestion de Antifungicos y la Reduccion de Candidiasis Invasora (PROMULGA) II Project
  6. Institute de Salud Carlos III Madrid Spain
  7. European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) [PI13/01148]
  8. Institute de Salud Carlos III Madrid Spain - European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) [CM15/00181]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine among patients with candidemia the real rate of ophthalmoscopy and the impact of performing ocular assessment on the outcome of the disease. We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, population-based candidemia surveillance program implemented in Spain during 2010-2011 (CANDIPOP). Ophthalmoscopy was performed in only 168 of the 365 patients with candidemia (46%). Ocular lesions related to candidemia were found in only 13/168 patients (7.7%), of whom 1 reported ocular symptoms (incidence of symptomatic disease in the whole population, 0.27% [1/365]). Ophthalmological findings led to a change in antifungal therapy in only 5.9% of cases (10/168), and performance of the test was not related to a better outcome. Ocular candidiasis was not associated with a worse outcome and progressed favorably in all but 1 evaluable patient, who did not experience vision loss. The low frequency of ophthalmoscopy and ocular involvement and the asymptomatic nature of ocular candidiasis, with a favorable outcome in almost all cases, lead us to reconsider the need for systematic ophthalmoscopy in all candidemic patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据