Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24713511›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014

Multilevel competing risk models to evaluate the risk of nosocomial infection.

Martin Wolkewitz, Ben S Cooper, Mercedes Palomar-Martinez, Francisco Alvarez-Lerma, Pedro Olaechea-Astigarraga, Adrian G Barnett, Stephan Harbarth, Martin Schumacher

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Nomogram Prediction Model for Risk Factors of Secondary Infection in Sepsis Patients.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Martin Wolkewitz
Ben S Cooper
Mercedes Palomar-Martinez
Francisco Alvarez-Lerma
Pedro Olaechea-Astigarraga
Adrian G Barnett
Stephan Harbarth
Martin Schumacher
Hospital de Galdakao · ESHospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova · ESMahidol University · THParc de Salut · ESQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006924/1Wellcome Trust 089275/Z/09/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRisk factor analyses for nosocomial infections (NIs) are complex. First, due to competing events for NI, the association between risk factors of NI as measured using hazard rates may not coincide with the association using cumulative probability (risk). Second, patients from the same intensive care unit (ICU) who share the same environmental exposure are likely to be more similar with regard to risk factors predisposing to a NI than patients from different ICUs. We aimed to develop an analytical approach to account for both features and to use it to evaluate associations between patient- and ICU-level characteristics with both rates of NI and competing risks and with the cumulative probability of infection.

methodsWe considered a multicenter database of 159 intensive care units containing 109,216 admissions (813,739 admission-days) from the Spanish HELICS-ENVIN ICU network. We analyzed the data using two models: an etiologic model (rate based) and a predictive model (risk based). In both models, random effects (shared frailties) were introduced to assess heterogeneity. Death and discharge without NI are treated as competing events for NI.

resultsThere was a large heterogeneity across ICUs in NI hazard rates, which remained after accounting for multilevel risk factors, meaning that there are remaining unobserved ICU-specific factors that influence NI occurrence. Heterogeneity across ICUs in terms of cumulative probability of NI was even more pronounced. Several risk factors had markedly different associations in the rate-based and risk-based models. For some, the associations differed in magnitude. For example, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were associated with modest increases in the rate of nosocomial bacteremia, but large increases in the risk. Others differed in sign, for example respiratory vs cardiovascular diagnostic categories were associated with a reduced rate of nosocomial bacteremia, but an increased risk.

conclusionsA combination of competing risks and multilevel models is required to understand direct and indirect risk factors for NI and distinguish patient-level from ICU-level factors.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross InfectionFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID24713511
PMCPMC4056071
OpenAlexW1574866103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.