ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2021
Validation of a Community-Acquired Pneumonia Score To Improve Empiric Antibiotic Selection at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Derivation and validation of a risk assessment model for drug-resistant pathogens in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- The CREPE Score: A Predictive Tool for Third-Generation Cephalosporin-Resistant Enterobacterales Pneumonia in Community Settings.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Score to Identify the Isolation of Pseudomonas in Pneumonia.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Investigation of drug-related problems in patients hospitalized in chest disease wards: A randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2019 American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines recommend that drug-resistant pathogens (DRP) be empirically covered if locally validated risk factors are present. This retrospective case-control validation study evaluated the performance of the drug resistance in pneumonia (DRIP) clinical prediction score. Two hundred seventeen adult patients with ICD-10 (https://www.who.int/classifications/classification-of-diseases) pneumonia diagnosis, positive confirmed microbiologic data, and clinical signs and symptoms were included. A DRIP score of ≥4 was used to assess model performance. Logistic regression was used to select for significant predictors and create a modified DRIP score, which was evaluated to define clinical application. The DRIP score predicted pneumonia due to a DRP with a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 73%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.82). From regression analysis, prior infection with a DRP and antibiotics in the last 60 days, yielding scores of 2 points and 1 point, respectively, remained local risk factors in predicting drug-resistant pneumonia. Sensitivity (47%) and specificity (94%) were maximized at a threshold of ≥2 in the modified DRIP model. Therefore, prior infection with a DRP remained the only clinically relevant predictor for drug-resistant pneumonia. The original DRIP score demonstrated a decreased performance in our patient population and behaved similarly to other clinical prediction models. Empiric CAP therapy without anti-methicillin-resistant
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.