ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015
Bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic/urinary antigen-positive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia compared.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Serotype distribution of invasive and non-invasive pneumococcal disease in children ≤5 years of age following the introduction of 10- and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines in infant national immunization programs: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Acute organ injury and long-term sequelae of severe pneumococcal infections.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2023Review
- Pathogenic bacteria and treatment resistance in older cardiovascular disease patients with lung infection and risk prediction model.Open life sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal pneumonia is based mainly on bacteraemia. Episodes without bacteraemia, but with a positive urinary antigen test (UAT), are considered non-invasive. We determined differences in outcome between patients with bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Adult patients with clinical and radiological evidence of CAP with blood cultures and UAT tests performed at presentation in three Dutch laboratories between June 2008 and May 2010 were included. Clinical characteristics were retrospectively extracted from hospital records. Overall, 168 patients had non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal CAP and 123 had bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP. The day-30 mortality was 9% and 13% for non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive and bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP patients, respectively [risk difference -4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11% to +3%, p = 0.28]. In a multivariable logistic regression model, age ≥ 65 years, admission to the intensive care unit/coronary care unit (ICU/CCU) and presence of an immunocompromising condition were associated with day-30 mortality. A non-significant association with mortality was found for bacteraemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% CI 0.94-5.21, p = 0.07). No such trend was found for UAT positivity. The median lengths of hospital stay were 8 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-14] and 10 (IQR 6-18) days for non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive and bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP patients, respectively (p = 0.05). As compared to non-bacteraemic/UAT-positive pneumococcal CAP, bacteraemic pneumococcal CAP has a stronger association with day-30 mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25079513What 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.