ArticleCritical care explorations2026
Likelihood of Bacterial Infection in Immunocompromised Patients Treated With IV Antibiotics for Possible Sepsis.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Erratum: Likelihood of Bacterial Infection in Immunocompromised Patients Treated With IV Antibiotics for Possible Sepsis: Erratum.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesImmunocompromised patients with possible sepsis are typically treated immediately with empiric antibiotics given their high risk for poor outcomes. Clinical presentations of sepsis, however, are protean and many nonbacterial infections and noninfectious conditions can present similarly. We assessed the likelihood of bacterial infections in retrospect in immunocompromised vs. nonimmunocompromised patients treated empirically for sepsis. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: We identified all adults treated for possible sepsis (blood culture draw, lactate measurement, and IV antibiotic administration) within 6 hours of emergency department (ED) arrival at nine hospitals between 2022 and 2024 and randomly selected 350 hospitalizations for structured medical record review, oversampling for immunocompromised status using administrative codes. Reviews were used to confirm immunocompromised status per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria and determine post hoc likelihoods of bacterial infection.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf the 350 patients, 186 (53.1%) were confirmed as immunocompromised and 164 (46.9%) as nonimmunocompromised. Immunocompromised patients more commonly presented with fevers, chills or rigors (66.0% vs. 32.0%, p < 0.001) and ED clinicians more often documented concern for sepsis (74% vs. 62%, p = 0.01) compared with nonimmunocompromised patients. Definite or probable bacterial infection was identified in 92 of 186 (49.5%) immunocompromised patients vs. 97 of 164 (59.1%) nonimmunocompromised patients (p = 0.07). Among immunocompromised patients without definite or probable bacterial infection, common alternative etiologies included viral or fungal infection, febrile neutropenia without clinical evidence of bacterial infection, progression of malignancy, and medication toxicity, whereas chronic heart or lung disease exacerbations, hypovolemia, and hypervolemia predominated among nonimmunocompromised patients.
conclusionsOnly about one-half of immunocompromised patients treated empirically for possible sepsis had definite or probable bacterial infection in retrospect, compared with approximately three-fifths in nonimmunocompromised patients. These findings underscore the complexity of sepsis diagnosis, particularly in immunocompromised patients, and highlight important differences in the conditions that mimic bacterial sepsis in immunocompromised vs. nonimmunocompromised hosts.
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.