ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2023
Recurrent bacteremia with Enterococcus faecalis, the clinical findings predicting endocarditis, and genomic characterization of the isolates: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative genomic characterization and antimicrobial resistance of bacteremia-causingMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Profiling of the tumor-associated microbiome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Gut pathogens · 2025Article
- The MEFIER Score-A Risk Score to Stratify Infective Endocarditis in Patients WithOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the United Arab Emirates: a retrospective analysis of 12 years of national AMR surveillance data.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple episodes of Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia (EfsB) may indicate a relapse and be due to an undiagnosed infective endocarditis (IE). The aims were to study the clinical presentation of patients with EfsB with focus on the risk of recurrent infection and IE, identify potential improvements of the management, and to investigate whether E. faecalis isolates from different episodes in the same patient were identical. In a retrospective study, a cohort of patients with monomicrobial (M) EfsB episodes was analyzed. Clinical data from medical records were collected. Furthermore, blood culture isolates from patients with multiple episodes were subjected to whole genome sequencing and multilocus sequence typing. In 666 episodes of MEfsB, 69 patients with IE and 43 with recurrent infections were found. Patients without IE, but with a following episode diagnosed as IE, were compared to those without a following episode. Variables significantly correlated with IE were long duration of symptoms, growth in all blood cultures, unknown origin of infection, heart murmur, and predisposition for IE. Transesophageal echocardiography, all negative, was done in 4 out of 11 episodes during the first episodes, later diagnosed with IE. In 28 of 31 patients with two or more EfsB episodes, isolates with identical sequence type were found. Episodes of EfsB in patients later diagnosed with IE showed features of IE already during the first episodes, were not adequately evaluated, are due to identical isolates, and most likely represent true relapses. Risk factor analysis should guide the use of echocardiography.
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.