This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: The Paed-EQUAL Candida Score was developed to assess adherence to guideline-recommended management in paediatric candidemia; however, its clinical utility in predicting outcomes remains unclear, particularly in paediatric populations where validation data are scarce. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study including paediatric patients diagnosed with candidemia at a tertiary-care centre between 2014 and 2024. The Paed-EQUAL Candida Score was calculated for each patient, and its association with 30-day and 90-day mortality was evaluated using ROC curve analysis, and optimal cut-off values were explored. RESULTS: A total of 127 paediatric patients with candidemia were included, of whom 17 (13.4%) died within 30 days and 27 (21.3%) within 90 days. Central venous catheter removal was significantly associated with improved survival at both 30 days (76.4% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.001) and 90 days (77% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.007). Higher adherence to Paed-EQUAL Candida Score components was observed among survivors, with significantly higher median scores in survivors compared to non-survivors at 30 days (17 [IQR 14-18] vs. 14 [12-16], p = 0.026). However, the score indicated modest discriminative ability for predicting mortality, with an AUC of 0.667 (95% CI 0.577-0.748) for 30-day mortality and no significant predictive value for 90-day mortality (AUC 0.594, 95% CI 0.503-0.680). CONCLUSION: The Paed-EQUAL Candida Score demonstrated limited prognostic performance in paediatric candidemia and may have constraints in its ability to support clinical decision-making, particularly given its modest discriminative capacity. While it remains a potentially useful tool for assessing adherence to quality-of-care measures, further refinement or development of paediatric-specific and outcome-oriented scoring systems may be needed to improve risk stratification and prediction of clinical outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aykaç et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: