ArticleScientific reports2026
Derivation and validation of a new prediction score for bacteremia in the emergency department.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Prediction Score Versus Procalcitonin and Presepsin for Predicting Bacteremia in the Emergency Department: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection and treatment of bacteremia are crucial; however, blood culture takes days. We aimed to develop a prediction score using objective emergency department (ED)-available parameters. This single-center, retrospective cohort study included patients aged ≥ 16 years admitted to our ED with suspected bacteremia. The study was divided into derivation and validation periods. Data on vital signs, routine blood tests, and blood cultures were analyzed. Using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction score was developed and validated during the derivation and validation periods, respectively. A total of 3,725 and 3,471 patients were eligible for the derivation and validation periods, respectively. Continuous variables were converted to binary forms and used in logistic regression. The resulting prediction score was: Body temperature + Platelets × 2 + Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio × 3 + Albumin + Bilirubin × 2 + Creatinine + Lactate × 2. The area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve of the prediction score in the derivation and the validation period was 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.76–0.80) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.73–0.78), respectively. A prediction score based on routine blood tests and vital signs can effectively predict bacteremia in ED 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.