Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33204891›Full record

ArticlePorto biomedical journal

Eosinopenia as predictor of infection in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward: a cross-sectional study.

João M Silva, Artur M Costa, Célia Tuna, Renato Gonçalves, Sara Ferreira, Francisco Belém, Maria C Evangelista, Margarida Ascensão

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical and laboratory differences between pediatric hospitalized patients with sickle cell disease infected or not by SARS-CoV-2.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

João M SilvaInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Artur M CostaInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Célia TunaInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Renato GonçalvesInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Sara FerreiraInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Francisco BelémInterno de Formação Específica em Medicina Interna.
Maria C EvangelistaAssistente Hospitalar em Medicina Interna.
Margarida AscensãoAssistente Hospitalar Graduada Sénior em Medicina Interna, Internal Medicine Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Cova da Beira, Covilhã, Portugal.
Hospital Center of Cova da Beira · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe identification of infection in an internal medicine ward is crucial but not always straightforward. Eosinopenia has been proposed as a marker of infection, but specific cutoffs for prediction are not established yet. We aim to assess whether there is difference in eosinophil count between infected and noninfected patients and, if so, the best cutoffs to differentiate them.

methodsCross-sectional, observational study with analysis of all patients admitted to an Internal Medicine Department during 2 consecutive months. Clinical, laboratory and imaging data were analyzed. Infection at hospital admission was defined in the presence of either a microbiological isolation or suggestive clinical, laboratory, and/or imaging findings. Use of antibiotics in the 8 days before hospital admission, presence of immunosuppression, hematologic neoplasms, parasite, or fungal infections were exclusion criteria. In case of multiple hospital admissions, only the first admission was considered.Sensitivity and specificity values for eosinophils, leukocytes, neutrophils, and C-reactive protein were determined by receiver operating characteristic curve. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics® v25 and MedCalc Statistical Software® v19.2.3.

resultsA total of 323 hospitalization episodes were evaluated, each corresponding to a different patient. One hundred fifteen patients were excluded. A total of 208 patients were included, 62.0% (n = 129) of them infected at admission. Ten patients had multiple infections.Infected patients had fewer eosinophils than uninfected patients (15.8 ± 42 vs 71.1 ± 159 cell/mm

conclusionsEosinophil count was significantly lower in infected than in uninfected patients. The cutoff 69 cells/mm

Indexed as

C-reactive proteineosinopeniaeosinophil countinfectionleukogram

Identifiers

PMID33204891
PMCPMC7665260
OpenAlexW3099982897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.