CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisNeonatal and Maternal Infections

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Should central venous catheters be removed as soon as candidemia is detected in neonates

Karlowicz, M. Gary, Hashimoto, Laura Nickles, Kelly, Robert E., Buescher, E. Stephen·2000·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.106.5.e63
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Controversy exists regarding the most appropriate acute management of central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates with candidemia, with up to two thirds of neonatologists preferring to attempt antifungal therapy without removing CVCs. Objective To determine whether CVCs should be removed as soon as candidemia is detected in neonates. Methods. A cohort study of candidemia and CVC was conducted in infants in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) over a 5-year period (1994-1998). Results Fifty infants had early-removal CVC (ER-CVC) within 3 days and 54 infants had late-removal CVC (LR-CVC) >3 days after the first positive blood culture for Candida species. All infants were treated with amphotericin B. There was no significant difference between infants in the ER-CVC and LR-CVC groups in terms of gender, ethnicity, birth weight, gestational age, age at candidemia, severity-of-illness scores, distribution of types of CVC, or in the distribution of Candida species causing candidemia. The ER-CVC group had significantly shorter duration of candidemia (median: 3 days; range: 1-14 days), compared with the LR-CVC group (median: 6 days; range: 1-24 days). The case fatality rate of Candida albicans candidemia was significantly affected by the timing of CVC removal: 0 of 21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0-14) infants died in the ER-CVC group in contrast to 9 of 23 (39%; 95% CI: 19-59) in the LR-CVC group. Conclusion Failure to remove CVC as soon as candidemia was detected in ne…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.106.5.e63

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 179

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Karlowicz, M. G., Hashimoto, L. N., Kelly, R. E., & Buescher, E. S.
Affiliations
  • From the Departments of Pediatrics and
  • Eastern Virginia Medical School (US)
ORCID
Kelly, Robert E.
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
106
Issue
5
Pages
e63-e63
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.106.5.e63
OpenAlex
W2057232181
Cited by
178
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
Keywords
candidemia, central venous catheters, neonates, catheter removal timing, Candida albicans, amphotericin B, case fatality rate, neonatal intensive care, antifungal therapy
MeSH terms
Candida, Candidiasis, Catheterization, Central Venous, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Intensive Care Units, Neonatal

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