Cited by 36Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityYeasts and Rust Fungi StudiesNosocomial Infections in ICU

Yeast Colonization in Surgical Patients with Intra-Abdominal Perforations

Sandven, P., Giercksky, K. E.·2001·European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infections Diseases

Abstract

A prospective study was conducted to determine (i) the degree of yeast colonization in surgical patients with intra-abdominal perforations and (ii) whether the frequency of colonization is different in patients with a complicated postoperative course than in patients recovering uneventfully. A total of 1,496 specimens taken per- and post-operatively from the mouth, stomach, feces, urine, trachea, and abdomen of 109 surgical patients with intra-abdominal perforations were examined. Yeast was recovered from 98 (90%) of the patients and from 634 (42%) of the specimens. Approximately 70% of the specimens from the mouth and stomach, 47% of fecal specimens, and 31% of abdominal specimens were positive for yeast. A total of 42 patients had a complicated postoperative course. The majority of these patients were colonized with yeast at multiple body sites: yeast was recovered on one or more occasions from two or more body sites in 90% and from three or more body sites in 71%. Many of the patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course also were colonized: yeast was recovered from two or more body sites in 69% and from three or more body sites in 34%. The results of this study indicate that treatment recommendations based on yeast colonization will expose a large number of patients to unnecessary or even harmful antifungal treatment. This does not mean that yeast colonization is insignificant; however, more accurate criteria and methods based on prospective clinical studies are needed to detect patients at risk of developing severe Candida infection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s100960100531

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sandven, P., & Giercksky, K. E.
Affiliations
Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infections Diseases
Published
2001-07
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
0475-0481
ISSN
0934-9723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049789111
Cited by
36
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
yeast colonization, postoperative complications, Candida, antifungal therapy, surgical patients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antifungal Agents, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Intestinal Perforation, Male, Middle Aged, Mycoses, Postoperative Complications, Postoperative Period, Preoperative Care, Probability, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Yeasts, Colony Count, Microbial, Incidence, Survival Rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review