ArticleInfection2025
Clinical relevance of Staphylococcus saccharolyticus detection in human samples: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo characterize the clinical relevance of S. saccharolyticus and to identify criteria to distinguish between infection and contamination.
methodsWe retrospectively investigated clinical features of patients with S. saccharolyticus detection between June 2009 and July 2021. Based on six criteria, infection was considered likely for patients with a score from 3 to 6 points, infection was considered unlikely for patients with a score from 0 to 2 points. We performed group comparison and logistic regression to identify factors than are associated with likely infection. In addition, whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 22 isolates was performed.
resultsOf 93 patients in total, 44 were assigned to the group "infection likely" and 49 to the group "infection unlikely". Multiple regression analysis revealed "maximum body temperature during hospital stay" to have the strongest predictive effect on likely infection (adjusted odds ratio 4.40, 95% confidence interval 2.07-9.23). WGS revealed two different clades. Compared to isolates from clade A, isolates from clade B were more frequently associated with implanted medical devices (3/10 vs. 9/12, p = 0.046) and a shorter time to positivity (TTP) (4.5 vs. 3, p = 0.016). Both clades did neither differ significantly in terms of causing a likely infection (clade A 7/10 vs. clade B 5/12, p = 0.23) nor in median length of hospital stay (28 vs. 15.5 days, p = 0.083) and length of stay at the ICU (21 vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.14).
conclusionThese findings indicate that S. saccharolyticus can cause clinically relevant infections. Differentiation between infection and contamination remains challenging.
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.