ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Predictors of Brucella spp. bacteraemia at admission among adults with brucellosis: a two-centre retrospective cohort study in Ningxia, China.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis is endemic in north-western China, and Brucella spp. bacteraemia is a clinically important manifestation that may indicate more severe disease. However, robust and clinically interpretable predictors to prioritise blood cultures in resource-limited county-level hospitals are lacking. We aimed to compare admission clinical and routine laboratory features between bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic brucellosis and to develop a simple, clinically interpretable model to predict bacteraemia.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 518 adults with brucellosis admitted to two county-level hospitals in Ningxia, China, from January 2014 to June 2024. Brucellosis was confirmed by blood culture and/or concordant admission serology (Rose Bengal test positivity with a standard tube agglutination test titre ≥ 1:160). Brucella spp. bacteraemia was defined as ≥ 1 positive blood culture obtained at admission; non-bacteraemic infection was defined as all admission blood cultures negative. We compared demographic, clinical, and routine laboratory variables and fitted multivariable logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation and calibration assessment.
resultsOf 518 patients, 198 were bacteraemic and 320 were non-bacteraemic. Bacteraemic patients were older, more often had acute-onset disease, and more frequently had objectively documented fever and chills than non-bacteraemic patients. They also had higher inflammatory and liver-injury markers and lower albumin concentrations. For single predictors, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, 95% confidence interval) was 0.827 (0.790-0.863) for LDH, 0.749 (0.700-0.799) for CRP, 0.717 (0.670-0.765) for albumin (lower concentrations), and 0.688 (0.638-0.731) for ALT. The combined clinical-laboratory model achieved an AUC of 0.906 (0.878-0.929).
conclusionsA combined clinical-laboratory model based on readily available admission data showed excellent discrimination for early risk stratification of bacteraemia among adults with brucellosis, with acceptable internal calibration, and warrants external validation in other endemic, resource-limited settings.
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.