ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2023
Development and validation of an emergency bloodstream infection score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with community-acquired bloodstream infections.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protective effect and mechanism of nanoantimicrobial peptide ND-C14 againstWorld journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-acquired bloodstream infections (CABSIs) are common in the emergency departments, and some progress to sepsis and even lead to death. However, limited information is available regarding the prediction of patients with high risk of death.
methodsThe Emergency Bloodstream Infection Score (EBS) for CABSIs was developed to visualize the output of a logistic regression model and was validated by the area under the curve (AUC). The Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), Pitt Bacteremia Score (PBS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and McCabe-Jackson Comorbid Classification (MJCC) for patients with CABSIs were computed to compare them with EBS in terms of the AUC and decision curve analysis (DCA). The net reclassification improvement (NRI) index and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) index were compared between the SOFA and EBS.
resultsA total of 547 patients with CABSIs were included. The AUC (0.853) of the EBS was larger than those of the MEDS, PBS, SOFA, and qSOFA (all
conclusionThe EBS prognostic models were better than the SOFA, qSOFA, MEDS, and PBS models in predicting the in-hospital mortality of patients with CABSIs.
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.