ArticleEuropean journal of microbiology & immunology2012
Five-year retrospective epidemiological survey of anaerobic bacteraemia in a university hospital and rewiew of the literature.
Article in European journal of microbiology & immunology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Anaerobic bacteremias in an adult University Hospital in Córdoba, Argentina: a 26-year análisis]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2025Observational
- An Eleven-Year Retrospective Survey of Anaerobic Bloodstream Infection in Adults in a General Hospital.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Relevance of anaerobic bacteremia in adult patients: A never-ending story?European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2020Article
- Best Practices of Blood Cultures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Review
- Anaerobic Bacteria in Clinical Specimens - Frequent, But a Neglected Lot: A Five Year Experience at a Tertiary Care Hospital.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In spite of the developments in microbiological methods, blood cultures remain the cornerstone for the diagnosis of bacteraemia. Classically, minimum of two bottles are collected on a routine basis: an aerobic bottle, allowing preferential growth of aerobic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms, and an anaerobic bottle, providing suitable environment for strict anaerobic bacteria. Recent reports have documented a decrease in anaerobic bacteraemias and have questioned the need for routine anaerobic blood cultures. Bacteraemia due to anaerobic organisms occurs in 0.5-12% of blood cultures worldwide; however, recent studies from Europe and the USA presented inconsistent data regarding the prevalence of anaerobic bacteraemias between 1993 and 2006. The aims of this retrospective survey were to determine the prevalence of bacteraemias due to anaerobic bacteria and evaluate the importance of anaerobic blood cultures in a university hospital in Szeged, Hungary. We examined the occurrence of bacteraemias due to anaerobic bacteria during a 5-year period, from January 2005 to 2009, in order to identify current trends of anaerobic bacteraemias in our university.
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.