ArticleInfection2018
Management of bloodstream infections by infection specialists in France and Germany: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Infection, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04070820 ("Combination Treatment for Enterococcus Faecalis Bacteremia), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
"Combination Treatment for Enterococcus Faecalis Bacteremia: a Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study"
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short course of antimicrobial treatment for uncomplicated enterococcal bacteremia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Survey of infectious diseases providers reveals variability in duration of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of Gram-negative bloodstream infections.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022Article
- Variability in oral antibiotic step-down therapy in the management of Gram-negative bloodstream infections.International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2021Article
- Practice Patterns of Infectious Diseases Physicians in Transitioning From Intravenous to Oral Therapy in Patients With Bacteremia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBloodstream infections (BSI) are frequent infections worldwide. Our objective was to explore variation in the management of patients with BSI by infection specialists in France and Germany.
methodsThis work is part of an international ESCMID cross-sectional internet-based questionnaire survey that was opened from December 2016 to February 2017. All hospital-based infection specialists, senior or trainees, giving at least weekly advice on positive blood cultures could participate. Their practices were evaluated using six clinical vignettes presenting an uncomplicated BSI due to different pathogens.
resultsA hundred and ninety-six professionals (125 from Germany and 71 from France) participated. Systematic expert advice for positive blood cultures was more often available in Germany as compared with France (73 vs. 56%, p = 0.004). In Germany, the professional providing the expert advice was more often a microbiologist or a pharmacist as compared with France (p = 0.001 and p = 0.037, respectively) where it was more often an infectious diseases specialist. Fewer German respondents reported to advise systematic IV-oral switch of antibiotic therapy. German respondents also recommended less often combination therapy: for example for Enterococcus faecalis (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.015), ESBL E. coli (94 vs. 67%, p < 0.001) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (76 vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Overall, management of candidaemia was more often compliant with the IDSA guidelines in France as compared with Germany, but no difference was noted for MRSA bacteraemia.
conclusionOur survey shows that wide variations exist between two neighboring countries in the recommendations by infection specialists for the management of BSI. International guidelines are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29397537What 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.