ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Bacteremic and Non-bacteremic Sepsis: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Likelihood of Blood Culture Positivity Using SeptiCyte RAPID.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence should genuinely support clinical reasoning and decision making to bridge the translational gap.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Likelihood of blood culture positivity using SeptiCyte RAPID.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSepsis remains a prevalent critical illness encountered in emergency departments and intensive care units (ICU), with culture-negative sepsis constituting 30-60% of cases. The effect of culture type on treatment and outcomes remains unclear, and conflicting evidence exists regarding disparities between Gram-positive and Gram-negative infections.
objectiveTo further describe and compare characteristics and outcomes of culture-positive versus culture-negative sepsis. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 1375 patients admitted to the ICU of a single tertiary care hospital between 2016 and 2019 with a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock. Patients who did not meet the screening criteria, lacked drawn or documented cultures, or had documented non-bacterial infections, were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease severity and secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and duration of hospital and ICU stay. The principal and secondary exposure variables were blood culture status (positive vs. negative) and Gram staining (positive vs. negative), respectively.
resultsOverall, 943 patients (68.5%) were culture-negative and 432 (31.5%) were culture-positive. Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from 178 patients, Gram-negative bacteria from 199 patients, and both from 55 patients. Culture-positive patients demonstrated an almost two-fold higher likelihood of requiring vasopressors (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.98), a higher incidence of stress-dose steroid administration (adjusted OR, 1.68), and higher resuscitative fluid administration at six and 72 hours than culture-negative patients. No significant between-group differences emerged in the ICU or hospital length of stay, or mortality. No significant variations were observed when comparing Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteremia.
conclusionAlthough significant differences in illness severity existed between blood culture-negative and blood culture-positive patients with sepsis, patient-oriented secondary outcomes did not exhibit significant between-group differences. These results indicate that clinicians should not be reassured by the lack of proven bacteremia in patients with suspected sepsis, given similar outcomes.
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.