ArticleScientific reports2026
Bacteremia prediction models to reduce unnecessary blood cultures: external validation in a large US 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteremia prediction models can avoid unnecessary blood cultures while missing few bacteremia patients in European cohorts. We aimed to assess the performance of these models in the United States. We externally validated five prediction models in patients ≥ 18 years old evaluated in an academic emergency department (ED) in the United States, between October 2013 and October 2023. Patients needed to have one or more blood cultures and a procalcitonin (PCT) test within 6 h of obtaining blood cultures. The models used basic clinical information such as age and vital signs, with or without the addition of C-reactive protein (CRP), PCT or both. Missing data were imputed. The outcome of the models was bacteremia, defined as at least one true positive blood culture obtained within 48 h of the ED visit. Performance of the models was assessed with the C-statistic for discrimination and calibration plots for calibration. Clinical usefulness was evaluated by the potential reduction in blood cultures, missed bacteremic episodes and decision curve analysis. We included 12,864 patients (55% male, median age 66 years). 1164 out of 12,864 (9.0%) had bacteremia, while 843 (6.6%) patients had contaminated blood cultures. We observed substantial improvement in performance for models that included PCT, compared to those based on clinical information alone or with CRP. The best performing models included PCT with or without clinical information, with C-statistics of 0.80 (95% CI 0.79-0.82 and 0.79-0.81), adequate overall calibration (predicted 10.4%-13.0%, observed 9.0%). Both models were able to reduce ̴30% of blood cultures while missing 5% of bacteremic episodes. We conclude that previously proposed bacteremia prediction models demonstrated robust applicability in a large United States ED population. Models including procalcitonin have promise to safely avoid many blood cultures in the ED. Further validation and impact studies may support the implementation of these models.
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.