ArticleTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Screening for co-infections in patients with substance use disorders and severe bacterial infections.
Article in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial and fungal infections in persons who inject drugs.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of an Embedded Infectious Disease Screening, Treatment, and Prevention Intervention Within an Inpatient Substance Use Treatment Program.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Harm Reduction: A Missing Piece to the Holistic Care of Patients Who Inject Drugs.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with substance use disorders admitted for severe bacterial infection are in a prime position to be screened for important co-infections. However, data suggest that standard screening for co-infections in this population during hospital admission can vary in frequency and type of testing. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients to evaluate screening for co-infections during admission, followed by a case-control analysis to determine factors associated with lack of any screening. Results: We identified 280 patients with 320 eligible admissions. Most were male and Caucasian with unstable housing. Only 67 (23.9%) patients had a primary-care provider. About 89% ( Conclusion: Our data suggest additional interventions are needed to improve inpatient screening for co-infections in this population.
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.