ArticleTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
External validation of ID-BactER and Shapiro scores for predicting bacteraemia in the emergency department.
Article in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. 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
Introduction: The blood culture positivity rate in the emergency department (ED) is <20%; however, the mortality associated with Community-acquired bacteraemia (CAB) is as high as 37.8%. For this reason, several models have been developed to predict blood culture positivity for the diagnosis of CAB. Objective: To validate two bacteraemia prediction models in a high-complexity hospital in Colombia. Design: External validation study of the ID-BactER and Shapiro scores based on a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent blood culture within 48 h of ED admission. Methods: Scale calibration was assessed by comparing expected and observed events (calibration belt). Discriminatory ability was assessed by area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC). Results: We included 1347 patients, of whom 18.85% were diagnosed with CAB. The most common focus of infection was the respiratory tract (36.23%), and the most common microorganism was Conclusion: The Shapiro score is not calibrated, and its discriminatory ability is poor. ID-BactER has an adequate calibration when the expected events are higher than 20%. Limiting blood culture collection to patients with an ID-BactER score ⩾4 could reduce unnecessary blood culture collection and thus health care costs.
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.