ArticlePloS one2021
Added value of clinical prediction rules for bacteremia in hemodialysis patients: An external validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utility of shaking chills as a diagnostic sign for bacteremia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Characteristics and Prognosis of Infectious Disease Emergencies in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in India.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Early identification of bloodstream infection in hemodialysis patients by machine learning.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Article
- [New predictive models of bacteremia in the emergency department: a step forward].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2022Review
- Clinical Characteristics and In-Hospital Outcomes in Dialysis Patients with Septic Arthritis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHaving developed a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for bacteremia among hemodialysis (HD) outpatients (BAC-HD score), we performed external validation. MATERIALS &
methodsData were collected on maintenance HD patients at two Japanese tertiary-care hospitals from January 2013 to December 2015. We enrolled 429 consecutive patients (aged ≥ 18 y) on maintenance HD who had had two sets of blood cultures drawn on admission to assess for bacteremia. We validated the predictive ability of the CPR using two validation cohorts. Index tests were the BAC-HD score and a CPR developed by Shapiro et al. The outcome was bacteremia, based on the results of the admission blood cultures. For added value, we also measured changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) using logistic regression and Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI), in which each CPR was added to the basic model.
resultsIn Validation cohort 1 (360 subjects), compared to a Model 1 (Basic Model) AUC of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.59-0.80), the AUC of Model 2 (Basic model + BAC-HD score) and Model 3 (Basic model + Shapiro's score) increased to 0.8 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83), respectively. In validation cohort 2 (96 subjects), compared to a Model 1 AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68-0.94), the AUCs of Model 2 and Model 3 increased to 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72-0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94), respectively. NRIs on addition of the BAC-HD score and Shapiro's score were 0.3 and 0.06 in Validation cohort 1, and 0.27 and 0.13, respectively, in Validation cohort 2.
conclusionEither the BAC-HD score or Shapiro's score may improve the ability to diagnose bacteremia in HD patients. Reclassification was better with the BAC-HD score.
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.