ArticleInfection and drug resistance2025
Evaluating the Clinical Benefit of Carbapenem-Resistant
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus ceftazidime-avibactam in multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Pooled it
- Epidemiology and clinical outcomes of carbapenamase-producing organism (CPO) colonization: a tertiary care center experience in Saudi Arabia.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Limited data exist regarding the risk of infection in patients who test positive during Carbapenem-resistant Objective: Compare CRE infection rates between patients with positive and negative CRE screening results. Design: Retrospective, non-experimental descriptive cohort study. Study Setting: Conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSHRC), a tertiary care center in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Subjects and Methods: Over one year, 1070 admitted patients were screened for CRE. Propensity score matching was used to create comparable cohorts of positive and negative screening patients. The study compared the subsequent CRE infection risk, 90-day mortality, total days of hospitalization, ICU admissions, and duration of antibiotic treatment in patients who tested positive for CRE. Main Outcome Measures: CRE infection rates among patients with positive and negative screening results. Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 66 patients with positive CRE screens matched to 133 negative-screen patients. Of those who screened positive, 35% developed a confirmed CRE infection during their hospital stay, compared to 4.6% in the negative group. CRE-positive patients experienced longer hospital stays (mean 21.2 vs 14.7 days, p < 0.001), higher readmission rates (38% vs 19%, p = 0.004), and increased mortality (24% vs 11%, p = 0.019). No significant differences were noted in ICU admission rates. Conclusion: Nearly one-third of patients with positive CRE screening results were at risk of developing subsequent CRE infections. Additionally, positive CRE screening was associated with higher mortality. Limitations: Small sample size and potential selection bias due to screening being performed only in ICU-required patients, potentially skewing results toward poorer outcomes. Findings apply only to hospitalized patients.
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.