ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Developing a Personalized Approach to Follow-Up Blood Cultures in Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The utility of follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSIs) remains controversial. The lack of randomized controlled trials and guidelines has led to the inappropriate use of unnecessary FUBCs, increasing costs, the length of hospital stays, and antibiotic use. In this review, we aim to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the most significant studies on FUBCs in GN-BSIs, proposing a more personalized approach for using FUBCs in GN-BSIs. FUBCs seem to have a low yield of persistent positive BC in uncomplicated GN-BSIs and no effect on mortality, but some selected patients may benefit. Available studies show different results regarding the mortality and benefit of FUBCs, mainly due to differences in methodology and patient characteristics. However, selected patients with endovascular infections, central venous catheters, unfavorable responses, and no source control seem to benefit the most. Randomized controlled trials are warranted in order to confirm these indications.
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.