Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 744

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Micafungin versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections during Neutropenia in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

van Burik, J.-A. H., Ratanatharathorn, V., Stepan, D. E., Miller, C. B., Lipton, J. H., Vesole, D. H., Bunin, N., Wall, D. A., Hiemenz, J. W., Satoi, Y., Lee, J. M., Walsh, T. J., for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group·2004·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

We hypothesized that chemoprophylaxis with the echinocandin micafungin would be an effective agent for antifungal prophylaxis during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We therefore conducted a randomized, double-blind, multi-institutional, comparative phase III trial, involving 882 adult and pediatric patients, of 50 mg of micafungin (1 mg/kg for patients weighing <50 kg) and 400 mg of fluconazole (8 mg/kg for patients weighing <50 kg) administered once per day. Success was defined as the absence of suspected, proven, or probable invasive fungal infection (IFI) through the end of therapy and as the absence of proven or probable IFI through the end of the 4-week period after treatment. The overall efficacy of micafungin was superior to that of fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis during the neutropenic phase after HSCT (80.0% in the micafungin arm vs. 73.5% in the fluconazole arm [difference, 6.5%]; 95% confidence interval, 0.9%-12%; P=.03). This randomized trial demonstrates the efficacy of an echinocandin for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/422312

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 744

Metadata

Authors
van Burik, J.-A. H., Ratanatharathorn, V., Stepan, D. E., Miller, C. B., Lipton, J. H., Vesole, D. H., Bunin, N., Wall, D. A., Hiemenz, J. W., Satoi, Y., Lee, J. M., Walsh, T. J., & for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2004-11-15
Volume
39
Issue
10
Pages
1407-1416
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2167412063
Cited by
744
References
1
FWCI
25.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Micafungin versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections during Neutropenia in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/422312
The paper
van Burik, J.-A. H., Ratanatharathorn, V., Stepan, D. E., Miller, C. B., Lipton, J. H., Vesole, D. H., Bunin, N., Wall, D. A., Hiemenz, J. W., Satoi, Y., Lee, J. M., Walsh, T. J., & for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. (2004). Micafungin versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections during Neutropenia in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/422312

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.