ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024
Bacteraemia caused by non-faecalis and non-faecium Enterococcus species-a retrospective study of incidence, focus of infection, and prognosis.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2024. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Bacteraemias due to Enterococci in Burns: Incidence and Factors Associated to Mortality].Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2026Article
- Article
- In Vitro Activity of Ampicillin Plus Ceftriaxone Against Non-Microorganisms · 2024Article
- A case report of empyema caused by Enterococcus gallinarum.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The Potential of Dutasteride for Treating Multidrug-ResistantPharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Identification and treatment ofFrontiers in 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimEnterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium cause human infections including bacteraemia and infective endocarditis (IE). Only few studies describing non-faecalis and non-faecium Enterococcus (NFE) infections have been conducted. We aimed to describe the incidence, prognosis, and focus of infection of bacteraemia with NFE.
methodsThis retrospective population-based study included all episodes of patients having a blood culture with growth of NFE between 2012 and 2019 in Region Skåne, Sweden. Information was collected from medical records. Episodes of bacteraemia caused by NFE were compared to episodes of bacteraemia caused by E. faecalis and E. faecium.
resultsDuring the study period, 136 episodes with NFE bacteraemia were identified corresponding to an incidence of NFE bacteraemia of 16 cases per 1,000,000 person-years among adults. Enterococcus casseliflavus (n=45), Enterococcus gallinarum (n=34), and Enterococcus avium (n=29) were the most common species. The most common foci of infection were biliary tract infections (n=17) followed by gastrointestinal infections (n=7). Urinary tract infections were not commonly caused by NFE (n=1), and no episodes of IE were caused by NFE. Polymicrobial bacteraemia was more common with NFE (73%) than with E. faecalis (35%) and E. faecium (42%). Community acquired infections were more common in bacteraemia with NFE compared to E. faecium. 30- and 90-day survival rates were 76% and 68%, respectively, and recurrent NFE bacteraemia was seen after 3% of the episodes.
conclusionBacteraemia caused by NFE is rare and is often polymicrobial. Biliary tract focus is common in NFE bacteraemia whereas IE and urinary tract focus are uncommon.
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.