ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
The impact of follow-up blood cultures on mortality and management in patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections: a validation cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe practice of obtaining follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI) remains controversial. The current study had two goals: (1) to internally validate our earlier findings of decreased mortality in patients with FUBCs and increased mortality in those with persistent GN-BSI, and (2) to identify mechanisms by which FUBCs might impact clinical care and outcome.
methodsAdults with GN-BSI at Duke University were enrolled from 2015 to 2021. Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score-weighting were used to examine associations of FUBCs and positive FUBCs with attributable and all-cause in-hospital mortality. Immortal time bias was addressed by treating FUBCs as a time-dependent variable and through sensitivity analyses. To understand the potential impact of FUBCs on clinical care, matched cohorts were generated (n = 41 in each group): (1) no FUBCs, (2) FUBCs negative for growth, and (3) FUBCs positive for growth (i.e., persistent GN-BSI). Infection-related consultations, imaging studies, and procedures were determined for each matched cohort.
resultsOf the 1291 patients in this study, FUBCs were obtained in 78% (1012 patients) and positive in 20% (199 patients). After adjusting for immortal time bias, obtaining FUBCs remained associated with decreased attributable mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.49; p < 0.0001). Persistent GN-BSI was associated with increased attributable mortality (HR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.24-2.52; p = 0.002). Obtaining FUBCs was associated with subsequent infectious diseases (ID) consultation (No FUBCs: 2/41 [5%]; FUBCs: 21/82 [26%]; p < 0.0001). This finding was primarily due to patients with persistent GN-BSI (FUBCs negative: 6/41 [15%]; FUBCs positive: 15/41 [37%]; p = 0.04). Patients with persistent GN-BSI had a higher rate of source control procedures (FUBCs positive: 12/41 [29%]; All others: 11/82 [13%]); p = 0.05).
conclusionsObtaining FUBCs was associated with decreased mortality. This mortality effect could stem from increased ID consults after FUBCs and increased source control procedures following positive FUBCs.
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.