4.7 Review

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Candidiasis: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 503-535

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/596757

关键词

-

资金

  1. Infectious Diseases Society of America
  2. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
  3. Merck
  4. Astellas Pharma
  5. National Institutes of Health
  6. Biosynexus
  7. Associates of Cape Cod
  8. Pfizer
  9. Rockeby
  10. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  11. AstraZeneca International
  12. Johnson and Johnson, Medicines Company
  13. MedImmune
  14. Novartis
  15. Schering Plough
  16. Roche Diagnostics
  17. Amgen
  18. Columbia University
  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  20. Romark Laboratories
  21. MSD
  22. Schering-lough
  23. Gilead
  24. Basilea Pharmaceutica
  25. Viracor
  26. Schering
  27. Enzon
  28. Cubist Pharmaceuticals
  29. KV Pharmaceuticals
  30. Vicuron
  31. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIASC006830] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Guidelines for the management of patients with invasive candidiasis and mucosal candidiasis were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace the previous guidelines published in the 15 January 2004 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases and are intended for use by health care providers who care for patients who either have or are at risk of these infections. Since 2004, several new antifungal agents have become available, and several new studies have been published relating to the treatment of candidemia, other forms of invasive candidiasis, and mucosal disease, including oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis. There are also recent prospective data on the prevention of invasive candidiasis in high-risk neonates and adults and on the empiric treatment of suspected invasive candidiasis in adults. This new information is incorporated into this revised document.

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

4.7
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