ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Bacteriological profile and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of bloodstream infections from a teaching institution in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, North India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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.
- Comparative analysis of pathogen detection methods in spinal infections: a retrospective study of 287 cases.BMC infectious diseases · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bloodstream infections (BSIs), encompassing both self-limiting bacteremia and potentially fatal septicaemia, make up the majority of healthcare-associated ailments worldwide. The organisms encountered are mostly multidrug-resistant (MDROs), leading to increased hospital stays. Our study aims to collect data about blood culture isolates from a medical college in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of blood culture isolates obtained at our laboratory for ten months from patients with clinical suspicion of sepsis or infection with the possibility of haematogenous spread was done. We only considered consecutive and patient-specific, non-duplicate isolates. Blood samples were initially incubated in BacT/ALERT® and then manually processed once they flagged positive. Results: A total of 1,033 blood samples were received, of which 217 (21%) showed the growth of a pathogenic organism. The positivity rate varied significantly across different age groups, locations, and departments ( Discussion: This study comprehensively analyses blood culture results from a diverse group of patients and emphasizes the association between risk factors and positive blood cultures. Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates demonstrated low sensitivity to common antibiotics, urging vigilant monitoring and specific therapy. Conclusion: Our study reveals important insights guiding clinical practices, antimicrobial stewardship, and infection control strategies.
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.