ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
A Scenario-Based Survey of Clinician Recommendations for Follow-Up Blood Cultures in Patients With Varying Risk of Persistent Gram-Negative Bacteremia.
Article in Open forum 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
Background: The utility of follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in patients with gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is unsettled. In practice, the use of FUBCs is variable. Understanding practice variation and drivers of FUBC ordering may clarify how clinicians identify patients at high risk for persistent GNB. Methods: We conducted a global survey (21 February 2024 to 9 April 2024) of healthcare workers using 10 hypothetical clinical scenarios to assess FUBC decision-making in GNB. Scenarios varied clinical factors and risk of persistence using the published AIMS scoring tool ( Results: Among 864 clinicians from 50 countries, 691 (80%) provided recommendations across 10 scenarios (6910 recommendations). Most were physicians (86.5%) and infectious disease specialists (79.7%). Follow-up blood cultures were frequently recommended, with >50% of clinicians endorsing FUBCs in 6 of 10 scenarios. Overall agreement was fair (κ = 0.26; 95% confidence interval, .10-.43). In adjusted analyses, factors associated with FUBC recommendations included female respondent sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.40; Conclusions: In this survey study, clinicians frequently recommended FUBCs, particularly in clinical vignettes with higher AIMS scores, inadequate source control, and clinical instability. Only fair agreement across risk-stratified scenarios suggests substantial practice variation and supports the need for prospective studies to understand when and in whom FUBCs should be used.
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.