ArticleInfection2024
Adherence to and clinical utility of "quality indicators" for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a retrospective, multicenter study.
Article in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacist-coordinated IDST treatment bundle achievement and impact on mortality in MRSA bacteraemia: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Infection prevention in practice · 2026Article
- Long-term trends in incidence and mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia; a retrospective population-based study from Central Norway 1996-2022.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Impact of Candida Care Bundle Compliance on the Prognosis of Patients With Candidemia: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching Analysis (2016-2023).Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of Serum (1→3)-β-D-Glucan Levels in Patients with Candidemia Stratified by Compliance with Candida Bundle: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study (2016-2023).Mycopathologia · 2025Observational
- Observational
- Adherence toAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to improve the prognosis, treatment, and management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) by evaluating the association between adherence to quality indicators (QIs) and clinical outcomes in patients with their clinical outcomes.
methodsWe retrospectively collected clinical and microbiological data on hospitalized patients with SAB from 14 hospitals (three with > 600, two with 401-600, five with 201-400, and four with ≤ 200 beds) in Japan from January to December 2022. The SAB management quality was evaluated using the SAB-QI score (ranging from 0 to 13 points), which consists of 13 QIs (grouped into five categories) based on previous literature.
resultsOf the 4,448 positive blood culture episodes, 289 patients with SAB (6.5%) were enrolled. The SAB-QI scores ranged from 3 to 13, with a median score of 9 points. The SAB-QI score was highest in middle-sized hospitals with 401-600 beds. Adherence to each of the four QI categories (blood culture, echocardiography, source control, and antibiotic treatment) was significantly higher in survived cases than in fatal cases. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests demonstrated that higher adherence to SAB-QIs indicated a better prognosis. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age, methicillin resistance, multiple comorbidities (≥ 2), and low SAB-QI score were significantly associated with 30-day mortality in patients with SAB.
conclusionsOur study highlights that greater adherence to the SAB-QIs correlates with improved patient outcomes. Management of patients with SAB should follow these recommended indicators to maintain the quality of care, especially for patients with poor prognosticators.
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.