ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Clinical physiological parameters for the prediction of gram-negative bacterial infection in the emergency department.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Predictors ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection and treatment of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), major causative pathogens of sepsis (a potentially fatal condition caused by the body's response to an infection), may benefit a patient's outcome, since the mortality rate increases by 5-10% for each hour of delayed therapy. Unfortunately, GNB diagnosis is based on bacterial culture, which is time consuming. Therefore, an economic and effective GNB (defined as a positive blood, sputum, or urine culture) infection detection tool in the emergency department (ED) is warranted.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in the ED of a university-affiliated medical center between January 01, 2014 and December 31, 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥ 18; (2) clinical suspicion of bacterial infection; (3) bacterial culture from blood, sputum, or urine ordered and obtained in the ED. Descriptive statistics was performed on patient demographic characteristics, vital signs, laboratory data, infection sites, cultured microorganisms, and clinical outcomes. The accuracy of vital signs to predict GNB infection was identified via univariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsA total of 797 patients were included in this study; the mean age was 71.8 years and 51.3% were male. The odds ratios of patients with body temperature ≥ 38.5 °C, heart rate ≥ 110 beats per minute, respiratory rate ≥ 20 breaths per minute, and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) < 14, in predicting GNB infection were found to be 2.3, 1.4, 1.9, and 1.6, respectively. The area under the curve values for ROC analysis of these measures were 0.70, 0.68, 0.69, and 0.67, respectively.
conclusionThe four physiological parameters were rapid and reliable independent predictors for detection of GNB infection.
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.