Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2022
Treatment duration for central line-associated infection caused by Enterococcus spp.: a retrospective evaluation of a multicenter cohort.
Observational study in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of central line-associated bloodstream infection: Part 2 - Treatment.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- ManagingEClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Short course of antimicrobial treatment for uncomplicated enterococcal bacteremia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Predictors of mortality of enterococcal bacteraemia and the role of source control interventions; a retrospective cohort study.Infection · 2025Article
- Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia: a multicentre observational study focused on risk factors for clinical and microbiological outcomes.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Observational
- Economic and health impact modelling of a whole genome sequencing-led intervention strategy for bacterial healthcare-associated infections for England and for the USA.Microbial genomics · 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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective of this study was to assess the appropriate treatment duration for enterococcal central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). This observational, retrospective, multicenter study conducted between 2011 and 2019 enrolled all hospitalized patients with monomicrobial enterococcal CLABSI. Those with infective endocarditis and non-survivors at least 7 days from index blood culture (BC) were excluded. Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. We enrolled 113 patients, of whom 59% were male, median age was 64 (SD ± 15) and median Charlson's index score 5 (IQR 3-8). Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium were found in 51% and 44% of cases, respectively. Median treatment duration was 11 days (IQR 6-17), and 32% of patients (n = 36) received ≤ 7 days. Characteristics of patients receiving more or less than 7 days of treatment were similar. Central line was removed in 82% (n = 93) of cases within a median of 3 days (1-8). At both uni- and multivariate analysis, duration of antibiotic treatment > 7 days was not associated with 30-day mortality [HR 0.41 (95% CI, 0.13-1.24), p = 0.12] even after adjustment with propensity score [HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.17-1.26), p = 0.13]. A 7-day treatment course appears to be safe in non-complicated enterococcal CLABSIs.
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.