Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38032514›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024

Risk exploration and prediction model construction for linezolid-resistant Enterococcus faecalis based on big data in a province in southern China.

Peijun Liu, Bangwei Zeng, Xiaoyan Wu, Feng Zheng, Yangmei Zhang, Xiaohua Liao

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Linezolid in the Focus of Antimicrobial Resistance ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peijun LiuAdministration Department of Nosocomial Infection, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1487-8247
Bangwei ZengAdministration Department of Nosocomial Infection, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China. fallwin126@126.com.
Xiaoyan WuAdministration Department of Nosocomial Infection, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Feng ZhengInformation Department, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Yangmei ZhangAdministration Department of Nosocomial Infection, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Xiaohua LiaoAdministration Department of Nosocomial Infection, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian Province, China.
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2021J01756
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnterococcus faecalis is a common cause of healthcare-associated infections. Its resistance to linezolid, the antibiotic of last resort for vancomycin-resistant enterococci, has become a growing threat in healthcare settings.

methodsWe analyzed the data of E. faecalis isolates from 26 medical institutions between 2018 and 2020 and performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine the independent predictors for linezolid-resistant E. faecalis (LREFs). Then, we used the artificial neural network (ANN) and logistic regression (LR) to build a prediction model for linezolid resistance and performed a performance evaluation and comparison.

resultsOf 12,089 E. faecalis strains, 755 (6.25%) were resistant to linezolid. Among vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis, the linezolid-resistant rate was 24.44%, higher than that of vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis (p < 0.0001). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses showed that gender, age, specimen type, length of stay before culture, season, region, GDP (gross domestic product), number of beds, and hospital level were predictors of linezolid resistance. Both the ANN and LR models constructed in the study performed well in predicting linezolid resistance in E. faecalis, with AUCs of 0.754 and 0.741 in the validation set, respectively. However, synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) did not improve the prediction ability of the models.

conclusionE. faecalis linezolid-resistant rates varied by specimen site, geographic region, GDP level, facility level, and the number of beds. At the same time, community-acquired E. faecalis with linezolid resistance should be monitored closely. We can use the prediction model to guide clinical medication and take timely prevention and control measures.

Indexed as

Enterococcus faeciumGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsVancomycin-Resistant EnterococciAnti-Bacterial AgentsBig DataEnterococcus faecalisHumansLinezolidMicrobial Sensitivity TestsVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsLinezolidVancomycinArtificial neural networkEnterococcus faecalisLinezolid resistanceLogistic regressionRisk factor

Identifiers

PMID38032514
PMCPMC10821975
OpenAlexW4389180555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.