ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2024
The accuracy of fully-automated algorithms for the surveillance of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in hospitalised patients.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of artificial intelligence in geriatric infection: recent advances and prospects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- The Paradox of Healthcare in the 'Superbugs' Era: Current Challenges and Future Directions.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The future of healthcare-associated infection surveillance: Automated surveillance and using the potential of artificial intelligence.Journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous surveillance for healthcare-associated infections such as central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CVC-BSI) is crucial for prevention. However, traditional surveillance methods are resource-intensive and prone to bias. This study aimed to develop and validate fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI.
methodsTwo algorithms were developed using electronic health record data from 1000 admissions with a positive blood culture (BCx) at Karolinska University Hospital from 2017: (1) Combining microbiological findings in BCx and CVC cultures with BSI symptoms; (2) Only using microbiological findings. These algorithms were validated in 5170 potential CVC-BSI-episodes from all admissions in 2018-2019, and results extrapolated to all potential CVC-BSI-episodes within this period (n = 181,354). The reference standard was manual record review according to ECDC's definition of microbiologically confirmed CVC-BSI (CRI3-CVC).
resultsIn the potential CVC-BSI-episodes, 51 fulfilled ECDC's definition and the algorithms identified 47 and 49 episodes as CVC-BSI, respectively. Both algorithms performed well in assessing CVC-BSI. Overall, algorithm 2 performed slightly better with in the total period a sensitivity of 0.880 (95%-CI 0.783-0.959), specificity of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999-1.000), PPV of 0.918 (95%-CI 0.833-0.981) and NPV of 1.000 (95%-CI 0.999-1.000). Incidence according to the reference and algorithm 2 was 0.33 and 0.31 per 1000 in-patient hospital-days, respectively.
conclusionsBoth fully-automated surveillance algorithms for CVC-BSI performed well and could effectively replace manual surveillance. The simpler algorithm, using only microbiology data, is suitable when BCx testing adheres to recommendations, otherwise the algorithm using symptom data might be required. Further validation in other settings is necessary to assess the algorithms' generalisability.
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.