ArticleInfection2013
Screening for bacteremia in sepsis and renal failure using hemofilters for renal replacement therapy.
Article in Infection, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sepsis outside intensive care unit: the other side of the coin.Infection · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with sepsis and renal failure, extracorporeal blood flow during renal replacement therapy may lead to the deposition of bacteria on artificial membranous surfaces, which might be suitable for the detection of pathogens. We studied whether discarded dialysis hemofilters can be used for the detection of bacteremia in patients with sepsis and renal failure.
methodsHemofilters of 16 ICU patients with sepsis were sampled. The hemofilters were incubated with soy broth and dehisced under sterile conditions. Samples were plated on blood agar and analyzed. Patient's characteristics were assessed.
resultsDespite the use of antibiotics in 87.5 % (14/16), a true positive detection rate of 31.3 % (5/16) for bacteremia was found by using cultures from hemofilters. The overall true positive rate of blood cultures was significantly lower (10.7 %, 8/75, p = 0.048). Bacteria detected in hemofilters were similar to those found in blood cultures or by cultures from other sources of infection in 80 % (4/5).
conclusionsCultures from used hemofilters of patients with sepsis and renal failure provide the opportunity to identify pathogenic microorganisms as an add-on approach. Further studies should investigate whether this method is applicable in clinical practice to enhance the sensitivity of microbiological diagnostics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.