ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Scoping review of risk-scoring tools for early prediction of bloodstream infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: do we really have a reliable risk-scoring tool?
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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.
- Incidence proportion and divergent performance of risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria bloodstream infections across haematological cohorts.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Personalized Antibiogram: A Novel Multitask Machine Learning Framework for Simultaneous Prediction of Antimicrobial Resistance Profile With Enhanced Detection of Carbapenem Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Admission prognostic nutritional index improves risk stratification for the carbapenem-resistant phenotype in culture-positiveFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are a global health concern. Rapid identification of CRE may improve patient outcomes and reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The use of risk-scoring tools (RSTs) can be valuable for optimizing the decision-making process for empirical antibiotic therapy of suspected CRE bacteraemia. These tools can also be used to triage use of expensive rapid diagnostic methods. Methods: We systematically reviewed the relevant literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus up to 1 November 2022 to identify RSTs that predict CRE BSIs. The literature review and analysis of the articles were performed by two researchers; any inconsistencies were resolved through discussion. Results: We identified 9 RSTs developed for early prediction of CRE BSIs and only logistic regression was used for most studies. These RSTs were quite different from each other in terms of their performance and the variables they included. They also had notable limitations and very few of them were externally validated. Conclusions: RSTs for early prediction of CRE BSIs have limitations and lack of external validity outside the local setting in which they were developed. Future studies to identify optimal RSTs in high and low CRE-endemic settings are warranted. Approaches based on rapid diagnostics and RSTs should be compared with a treatment approach using both methods in a randomized controlled trial.
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.