ArticleMedical science monitor basic research2020
Clinical Utilization of Blood and Urine Cultures and Incidences of Bacteremia and Bacteriuria in a Hospital in Thailand.
Article in Medical science monitor basic research, 2020. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND To effectively treat sepsis and urinary tract infection (UTI), blood and urine cultures should be used appropriately and relative to incidences of bacteremia and bacteriuria. This study aimed to investigate the use of blood and urine cultures and incidences of bacteremia and bacteriuria in a hospital in Thailand. MATERIAL AND METHODS Medical records of patients admitted from 2016 to 2018 were randomly selected and data in the records were anonymously extracted for investigation. RESULTS From 12 000 records, data on blood and urine cultures were extracted from 9% and 4% of them, respectively. The negative rate of blood culture was 87.48%. Bacteremia was detected in 10.22%. The positive rate of urine culture was 27.38% and the contamination rate was 31.26%. Escherichia coli was the most common cause of community-onset bacteremia and bacteriuria. Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci and Acinetobacter baumannii were the most common cause of hospital-acquired bacteremia while yeasts were the most common cause of hospital-acquired UTI. CONCLUSIONS A high negative rate of blood culture may result not only from its low sensitivity but also from liberal test use to identify sepsis in some conditions. Improper urine collection is the main problem with use of urine culture.
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.