ArticlePloS one2021
Infectious diseases specialist consultation in Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial infections and pathogenic situations: The case ofVirulence · 2025Review
- Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in solid organ transplant recipients.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2025Article
- Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients with Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia compared to patients with Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a retrospective study in a 16-year period at the university hospital, Japan.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- High-GradeFederal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommensal coagulase negative Staphylococcus lugdunensis may cause severe bacteremia (SLB) and complications. Treatment of SLB is not fully established and we wanted to evaluate if infectious diseases specialist consultation (IDSC) would improve management and prognosis.
methodsMulticenter retrospective study of SLB patients followed for 1 year. Patients were stratified according to bedside (formal), telephone (informal) or lack of IDSC within 7 days of SLB diagnosis.
resultsAltogether, 104 SLB patients were identified: 24% received formal bedside and 52% informal telephone IDSC whereas 24% were managed without any IDSC. No differences in demographics, underlying conditions or severity of illness were observed between the groups. Patients with bedside IDSC, compared to telephone IDSC or lack of IDSC, had transthoracic echocardiography more often performed (odds ratio [OR] 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-12.2; p = 0.012) and (OR 16.0; 95% CI, 4.00-63.9; P<0.001). Bedside IDSC was associated with more deep infections diagnosed compared to telephone IDSC (OR, 7.44; 95% CI, 2.58-21.4; p<0.001) or lack of IDSC (OR, 9.56; 95% CI, 2.43-37.7; p = 0.001). The overall mortality was 7%, 10% and 17% at 28 days, 90 days and 1 year, respectively. Considering all prognostic parameters, patients with IDSC, compared to lack of IDSC, had lower 90 days and 1 year mortality (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.51; p = 0.005) and (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.67; p = 0.007).
conclusionIDSC may improve management and outcome of Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia.
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.