ArticleBiology2021
Performance of Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Bacteremia of
Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Performance of Scoring Systems for Mortality Risk in Patients with Cryptococcemia: An Observational Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Scoring Systems to Evaluate the Mortality Risk of Patients with Emphysematous Cystitis: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Performance of Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Emphysematous Pyelonephritis: A 14-Year Hospital-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a hospital-based retrospective study on patients with bacteremia of LM. Data were collected from the electronic clinical database of Taichung Veterans General Hospital between January 2012 and December 2020. Bacteremia of LM was confirmed by at least one blood culture. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and laboratory data were collected for analysis. A variety of clinical scoring systems were used to predict the clinical outcome.
resultsA total of 39 patients had confirmed bacteremia of LM. Among them, 1 neonatal patient was excluded. The remaining 38 patients were studied. They included 16 males (42.1%) and 22 females (57.9%), with a mean age of 59.9 ± 19.6 years. Their hospital stay averaged 23.3 ± 20.9 days. The in-hospital mortality rate was 36.8%. Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) Score was 6.6 ± 4.0 for survivors and 12.4 ± 4.4 for non-survivors (P < 0.001). The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) was 3.9 ± 2.8 for survivors and 7.8 ± 3.1 for non-survivors (P = 0.001). Regarding the prediction of mortality risk, the AUC of ROC was 0.829 for MEDS and 0.815 for NEWS.
conclusionsMEDS and NEWS were both good predictors of the clinical outcome in LM bacteremic patients. In those with higher scores of MEDS (≥10) and NEWS (≥8), we recommended an early goal-directed therapy and appropriate antibiotic treatment as early as possible to reduce mortality. Further large-scale studies are required to gain a deeper understanding of this disease and to ensure patient safety.
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.