Cited by 26Ocular Infections and TreatmentsAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityInfective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management

Endogenous Candida endophthalmitis: Who is really at risk?

Open access
Seidelman, Jessica, Fleece, Molly, Bloom, Allison, Lydon, Emily, Yang, Wesley, Arnold, Christopher, Weber, David J., Okeke, Nwora Lance·2021·Journal of Infection

Abstract

Objectives The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends that all patients with candidemia undergo a dilated retinal exam to exclude endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Our objective was to determine if there are significant risk factors in candidemic patients for developing endogenous Candida endophthalmitis METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all candidemic patients at three academic medical centers between 2012 and 2017. We extracted risk factors for Candida endophthalmitis based on prior literature and compared them between patients with and without endophthalmitis. We then built a multivariate logistic regression model to assess which ones were significant.Results We found 771 patients with candidemia. 120 (15.6%) of these patients were diagnosed with Candida endophthalmitis. In our logistic regression analysis, central venous catheter presence (OR 8.35), intravenous drug use (OR 4.76), immunosuppression (OR 2.40), total parenteral nutrition recipient (OR 2.28), race (OR 1.65), age (OR 1.02), and gender (OR 0.57) were risk factors for developing Candida endophthalmitis. Additionally, Candida albicans was more likely to result in Candida endophthalmitis (OR 1.86).Conclusions This cohort represents the largest study of risk factors for candidemic patients who developed endogenous Candida endophthalmitis. Based on our findings, clinicians should develop targeted and cost-effective strategies for endophthalmitis screening.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.12.032

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Racial minority groups had a higher risk for Candida endophthalmitis than white patients (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55).

    “Other similar findings were reported in an observational study that found that racial minority groups had a higher risk for Candida endophthalmitis than white patients (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55) [113].”

    From Race and ethnicity: Risk factors for fungal infections? (2023) · cites this paper as [113]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seidelman, J., Fleece, M., Bloom, A., Lydon, E., Yang, W., Arnold, C., Weber, D. J., & Okeke, N. L.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
  • Seidelman, Jessica
  • Okeke, Nwora Lance
Venue
Journal of Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
82
Issue
2
Pages
276-281
ISSN
0163-4453 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120601118
Cited by
26
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Infections and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
Keywords
candidemia, risk factors, central venous catheters, intravenous drug use, immunosuppression, total parenteral nutrition, Candida albicans, retinal examination
MeSH terms
Candida, Candidiasis, Humans, Endophthalmitis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Eye Infections, Fungal

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