Parizkova 2000.

Methods	Monocentre, randomized, parallel‐group study Duration of the study: 1997 to 1998 Number excluded /number randomized: 0/38 (0%) Sample size calculation/method description: No/No
Participants	Patients randomized: 38 Age (mean): 46 years (treatment group), 43 years (no intervention group) Sex: not reported Inclusion criteria: admitted to ICU < five days, receipt of antibiotics > 24 hours, mechanical ventilation > 48 hours Exclusion criteria: immunocompromised patients, autoimmune disease, cancer patients with metastasis, mycotic infection, patients treated with antifungal drugs Percentage post‐surgical: > 37% Percentage colonized with Candida at baseline: not stated
Interventions	1. Fluconazole 100 mg/day IV (n = 18) 2. No intervention (n = 20) Duration of the intervention: throughout the ICU stay
Outcomes	Mortality Proven IFI Proven IFI with azole‐resistant Candida species Fungal colonization Fungal colonization with azole‐resistant Candida species Follow‐up duration: not stated
Type of antifungal treatment	Prophylaxis
Funding sources	Not reported
Declaration of interest among the primary researchers	Not reported
Notes	Country: Czech Republic Setting: single centre, adult ICU
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information to make a judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information to make a judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information to make a judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information about blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: the study protocol was not available but it was clear that the published reports included all expected outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no apparent risk for other bias