ReviewTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Impact of infectious diseases consultation on the outcome of patients with bacteraemia.
Review in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Automated Telephone Infectious Disease Consultations to Nonacademic Hospitals on 30-Day Mortality Among Patients With Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: The SUPPORT Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Routine Infectious Diseases Consultations on a Pediatric Cardiac Unit to Improve Positive Blood Culture Management.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- Incidence and resistance rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections in Switzerland: a nationwide surveillance study (2010-2022).Infection · 2025Observational
- Leveraging electronic medical records to evaluate a computerized decision support system for staphylococcus bacteremia.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Strategies to reduce 28-day mortality in adult patients with bacteremia in the emergency department.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Impact of Catheter-Drawn Blood Cultures on Patient Management: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Impact of a Pro-Active Infectious Disease Consultation on the Management of a Multidrug-Resistant Organisms Outbreak in a COVID-19 Hospital: A Three-Months Quasi-Experimental Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The role of infectious disease consultations in the management of patients with fever in a long-term care facility.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Place in Therapy of the Newly Available Armamentarium for Multi-Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Pathogens: Proposal of a Prescription Algorithm.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteraemia or bloodstream infections (BSI) are associated with much morbidity and mortality. Management of patients with bacteraemia is complex, and the increase in immunosuppressed patients and multidrug-resistant organisms poses additional challenges. The objective of this review is to assess the available published information about the impact of different aspects of management on the outcome of patients with BSI, and, specifically, the importance of infectious diseases specialists (IDS) consultation. The impact of management by IDS on different aspects, including interpretation of newer rapid techniques, early evaluation and treatment, and follow up, are reviewed. Overall, the available data suggest that IDS intervention improves the management and outcome of patients with BSI, either through consultation or structured unsolicited interventions in the context of multidisciplinary bacteraemia programmes.
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.