ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2019
Clinical- vs. model-based selection of patients suspected of sepsis for direct-from-blood rapid diagnostics in the emergency department: a retrospective study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of predictors for mortality and bacteraemia in patients suspected of infection.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Selecting high-risk patients may improve the cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostics. Our objective was to assess whether model-based selection or clinical selection is better for selecting high-risk patients with a high rate of bacteremia and/or DNAemia. This study involved a model-based, retrospective selection of patients from a cohort from which clinicians selected high-risk patients for rapid direct-from-blood diagnostic testing. Patients were included if they were suspected of sepsis and had blood cultures ordered at the emergency department. Patients were selected by the model by adding those with the highest probability of bacteremia until the number of high-risk patients selected by clinicians was reached. The primary outcome was bacteremia rate. Secondary outcomes were DNAemia rate, and 30-day mortality. Data were collected for 1395 blood cultures. Following exclusion, 1142 patients were included in the analysis. In each high-risk group, 220/1142 were selected, where 55 were selected both by clinicians and the model. For the remaining 165 in each group, the model selected for a higher bacteremia rate (74/165, 44.8% vs. 45/165, 27.3%, p = 0.001), and a higher 30-day mortality (49/165, 29.7% vs. 19/165, 11.5%, p = 0.00004) than the clinically selected group. The model outperformed clinicians in selecting patients with a high rate of bacteremia. Using such a model for risk stratification may contribute towards closing the gap in cost between rapid and culture-based diagnostics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.