Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29261091›Full record

ArticleSurgical infections2018

Association of Enterococcus spp. with Severe Combat Extremity Injury, Intensive Care, and Polymicrobial Wound Infection.

Rae A Heitkamp, Ping Li, Katrin Mende, Samandra T Demons, David R Tribble, Stuart D Tyner

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical infections, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. FEMS microbes · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Killing of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by a bifunctional cell wall-targeting T6SS effector.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rae A Heitkamp1 Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland.
Ping Li2 Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda, Maryland.
Katrin Mende2 Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda, Maryland.
Samandra T Demons1 Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland.
David R Tribble2 Infectious Disease Clinical Research Program, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda, Maryland.
Stuart D Tyner1 Bacterial Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research , Silver Spring, Maryland.
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USHenry M. Jackson Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombat-related extremity wound infections can complicate the recovery of injured military personnel. The Enterococcus genus contains both commensal and pathogenic bacteria found in many combat wounds. We describe the patient population susceptible to Enterococcus infection, the characteristics of Enterococcus spp. isolated from combat-related wounds, and the microbiological profile of Enterococcus-positive wounds.

methodsPatient and culture data were obtained from the Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study. Subjects were divided into a case group with enterococcal extremity wound infections and a comparator group with wound infections caused by other micro-organisms.

resultsCase and comparator subjects had similar patterns of injury and infection. Case subjects had higher Injury Severity Scores (33 vs. 30; p < 0.001), longer hospitalization at U.S. facilities (55 vs. 40 days; p = 0.004), and required more large-volume blood transfusions (>20 units) within 24 h post-injury (53% vs. 30%; p < 0.001). Approximately 60% of case subjects had three or more infections, and 91% had one or more polymicrobial infections, compared with 43% and 50%, respectively, in the comparator group. The thigh was the most common site of Enterococcus spp. isolation, contributing 50% of isolates. Enterococcus faecium was the predominant species isolated from case-group infections overall (66%), as well as in polymicrobial infections (74%). Frequent co-colonizing microbes in polymicrobial wound infections with Enterococcus were other ESKAPE pathogens (64%) (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae [and Escherichia coli], Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.) and fungi (35%).

conclusionsThe specific pathogenicity of Enterococcus relative to other pathogens in polymicrobial wounds is unknown. Identifying strain-specific outcomes and investigating the interactions of Enterococcus strains with other wound pathogens could provide additional tools and strategies for infection mitigation in combat-related wounds.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelAdultCoinfectionCritical CareEnterococcusExtremitiesFemaleGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansMalePrevalenceUnited StatesWound InfectionYoung Adultcombat-trauma–related infectionsEnterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumESKAPE pathogens

Identifiers

PMID29261091
PMCPMC5756931
OpenAlexW2777884190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.