Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35747334›Full record

ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022

Outcomes and Risk Factors of Bloodstream Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant and Non-Carbapenem-Resistant

Xiaoxue Liang, Ping Chen, Baoguo Deng, Feng-Hui Sun, Yongqiang Yang, Yanxian Yang, Ruowen He, Mingyang Qin, Yiping Wu, Fan Yang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Determinants of Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dissemination ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoxue Liang *School of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Ping Chen *School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, People's Republic of China.
Baoguo Deng *School of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, People's Republic of China.
Feng-Hui Sun *School of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Yongqiang YangDepartment of Microbiology, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Yanxian YangDepartment of Microbiology, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Ruowen HeDepartment of Microbiology, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Mingyang QinSchool of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, People's Republic of China.
Yiping WuDepartment of Microbiology, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Fan YangSchool of Basic Medical Science, Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, Henan Province, People's Republic of China.
Guo-Bao TianDepartment of Microbiology, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Min DaiSchool of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNXinxiang Medical University · CNChengdu Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare antimicrobial resistance, virulence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors between carbapenem-resistant Patients and Methods: The clinical data of 103 patients with Results: Our results indicated that CRKP isolates were more resistant to most tested antibiotics than CSKP isolates. The Conclusion: Our findings confirm that CRKP isolates are more drug-resistant than CSKP isolates and are associated with poorer outcomes. To prevent CRKP infection, strict infection control strategies and active surveillance should be implemented in hospitals.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistancebloodstream infectionsKlebsiella pneumoniaevirulence

Identifiers

PMID35747334
PMCPMC9212785
OpenAlexW4282969660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.