Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation

Open access
Marks, David I., Pagliuca, Antonio, Kibbler, Christopher C., Glasmacher, Axel, Heussel, Claus‐Peter, Kantecki, Michal, Miller, Paul J.S., Ribaud, Patricia, Schlamm, Haran T., Solano, Carlos, Cook, Gordon, for the IMPROVIT Study Group·2011·British Journal of Haematology

Abstract

Summary: Antifungal prophylaxis for allogeneic haematopoietic stem‐cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients should prevent invasive mould and yeast infections (IFIs) and be well tolerated. This prospective, randomized, open‐label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and safety of voriconazole (234 patients) versus itraconazole (255 patients) in alloHCT recipients. The primary composite endpoint, success of prophylaxis, incorporated ability to tolerate study drug for ≥100 d (with ≤14 d interruption) with survival to day 180 without proven/probable IFI. Success of prophylaxis was significantly higher with voriconazole than itraconazole (48·7% vs. 33·2%, P < 0·01); more voriconazole patients tolerated prophylaxis for 100 d (53·6% vs. 39·0%, P < 0·01; median total duration 96 vs. 68 d). The most common (>10%) treatment‐related adverse events were vomiting (16·6%), nausea (15·8%) and diarrhoea (10·4%) for itraconazole, and hepatotoxicity/liver function abnormality (12·9%) for voriconazole. More itraconazole patients received other systemic antifungals (41·9% vs. 29·9%, P < 0·01). There was no difference in incidence of proven/probable IFI (1·3% vs. 2·1%) or survival to day 180 (81·9% vs. 80·9%) for voriconazole and itraconazole respectively. Voriconazole was superior to itraconazole as antifungal prophylaxis after alloHCT, based on differences in the primary composite endpoint. Voriconazole could be given for significantly longer durations, with less need for other systemic antifungals.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08838.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Marks, D. I., Pagliuca, A., Kibbler, C. C., Glasmacher, A., Heussel, C., Kantecki, M., Miller, P. J. S., Ribaud, P., Schlamm, H. T., Solano, C., Cook, G., & for the IMPROVIT Study Group
Venue
British Journal of Haematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-22
Volume
155
Issue
3
Pages
318-327
ISSN
  • 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2141
OpenAlex
W1540152692
Cited by
243
References
5
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08838.x
The paper
Marks, D. I., Pagliuca, A., Kibbler, C. C., Glasmacher, A., Heussel, C., Kantecki, M., Miller, P. J. S., Ribaud, P., Schlamm, H. T., Solano, C., Cook, G., & for the IMPROVIT Study Group. (2011). Voriconazole versus itraconazole for antifungal prophylaxis following allogeneic haematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation. British Journal of Haematology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08838.x

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.