Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29183353›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

Comparison of the clinical and microbiological characteristics of Campylobacter and Helicobacter bacteremia: the importance of time to blood culture positivity using the BACTEC blood culture systems.

Kei Yamamoto, Kayoko Hayakawa, Maki Nagashima, Kayo Shimada, Satoshi Kutsuna, Nozomi Takeshita, Yasuyuki Kato, Shuzo Kanagawa, Koji Yamada, Kazuhisa Mezaki and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of Campylobacter spp. bloodstream infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Kei YamamotoDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan. kyamamoto@hosp.ncgm.go.jp.
Kayoko HayakawaDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Maki NagashimaDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Kayo ShimadaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research Institute, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Satoshi KutsunaDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Nozomi TakeshitaDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Yasuyuki KatoDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Shuzo KanagawaDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Koji YamadaClinical Laboratory, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Kazuhisa MezakiClinical Laboratory, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Teruo KirikaeDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research Institute, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.
Norio OhmagariDisease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan.

Funding

a grant from the National Center for Global Health and Medicine 25-114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCampylobacter spp. and Helicobacter spp. are rare but important causes of bacteremia in humans. Distinguishing these bacteria is complicated because of their similar phenotypic profiles. We conducted clinical and microbiological investigations of Campylobacter spp. or Helicobacter spp. bacteremia. Patients diagnosed with bacteremia from 2008 to 2014 were included. The clinical and microbiological characteristics of Campylobacter spp. and Helicobacter spp. bacteremia were compared. The BACTEC system was used in blood cultures. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted based on the time to blood culture positivity.

resultsSixteen cases of Helicobacter spp. bacteremia (patient age: 61 ± 18 years) and 14 cases of Campylobacter spp. bacteremia (patient age: 49 ± 21 years) were identified. Median time to blood culture positivity was longer for the Helicobacter spp. cases than the Campylobacter spp. cases (91.4 h vs 55.3 h, p < 0.01). A time to blood culture positivity > 75 h predicted Helicobacter spp. bacteremia with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.93 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90). In conclusion, a time to blood culture positivity was useful in distinguishing Helicobacter spp. bacteremia from Campylobacter spp. bacteremia.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBacteremiaBlood CultureCampylobacterCampylobacter InfectionsFemaleHelicobacterHelicobacter InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveTime FactorsBACTECBacteremiaCampylobacterHelicobacterSpiral-shaped bacilli

Identifiers

PMID29183353
PMCPMC5704506

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.