ArticleBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Prevalence and predictors of confirmed infection in patients receiving empiric antimicrobials in the intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundInfection diagnosis in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) is a challenge given the spectrum of conditions that present with systemic inflammation, the illness severity and the delay and imprecision of existing diagnostic methods. We hence sought to analyze the prevalence and predictors of confirmed infection after empirical antimicrobials during ICU stay.
methodsretrospective cohort of prospectively collected ICU data in an academic tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. We included all adult patients given a new empirical antimicrobial during their ICU stay. We excluded patients using prophylactic or microbiologically guided antimicrobials. Primary outcome was infection status, defined as confirmed, probable, possible, or discarded. In a multivariable analysis, we explored variables associated with confirmed infection.
resultsAfter screening 1721 patients admitted to the ICU from November 2017 to November 2022, we identified 398 new antimicrobial prescriptions in 341 patients. After exclusions, 243 antimicrobial prescriptions for 206 patients were included. Infection was classified as confirmed in 61 (25.1%) prescriptions, probable in 39 (16.0%), possible in 103 (42.4%), and discarded in 40 (16.5%). The only factor associated with infection was deltaSOFA (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.36, p = 0.022).
conclusionSuspected infection in the ICU is frequently not confirmed. Clinicians should be aware of the need to avoid premature closure and revise diagnosis after microbiological results. Development and implementation of new tools for faster infection diagnosis and guiding of antimicrobial prescription should be a research priority.
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.