脓毒症的研究由于缺乏对疑似感染的明确定义而受到阻碍。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen
{"title":"脓毒症的研究由于缺乏对疑似感染的明确定义而受到阻碍。","authors":"Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen","doi":"10.61409/A03250219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"72 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sepsis research is hampered by the lack of a clear definition of suspected infection.\",\"authors\":\"Lana Chafranska, Rune Husås Sørensen, Osama Bin Abdullah, Thomas Andersen Schmidt, Finn Erland Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.61409/A03250219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not relevant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11119,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"volume\":\"72 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Danish medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61409/A03250219\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A03250219","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在败血症研究中,一种流行的方法是将获得的培养物与抗生素治疗配对,以确定疑似感染。然而,文化是不敏感和非特异性的。因此,本研究的目的是检查急诊科(ED)接受和未接受培养的感染患者的比例,并根据培养情况估计28天死亡率和死亡率的预后因素。方法:我们对疑似或记录感染的成年ED患者(2017年10月1日至2018年3月31日)前瞻性收集的数据进行了二次分析。同时接受培养和抗生素治疗的患者与仅接受抗生素治疗的患者进行比较。Logistic回归分析评估了死亡率差异。结果:在2055例患者中,1441例(70.1%)在抗生素治疗之外至少进行了一次培养。在未接受培养的患者中,163例(26.6%)患者入院时序贯器官衰竭评估评分(SOFA)≥2,而接受培养的患者中有528例(36.6%)(差异:5.7-14.3)。28天死亡率分别为7.3%和7.7%(差异为-2.1 ~ 2.9)。年龄、SOFA和Charlson合并症指数是两组患者最重要的预后因素。结论:使用培养物和抗生素来定义疑似感染可能会在败血症研究中引入偏见。应验证依赖这些标准的数据源,以检查其适用性。资助:新西兰地区卫生研究基金会和Naestved、Slagelse和Ringsted医院研究基金。试验注册:不相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sepsis research is hampered by the lack of a clear definition of suspected infection.

Introduction: A prevalent approach in sepsis research is pairing obtained cultures with antibiotic treatment to identify suspected infections. However, cultures are insensitive and nonspecific. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the proportion of patients with infections admitted to an emergency department (ED) with and without having cultures obtained and to estimate 28-day mortality and prognostic factors of mortality according to culture status.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult ED patients with suspected or documented infections (1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018). Patients receiving both cultures and antibiotics were compared to those treated solely with antibiotics. Logistic regression analyses assessed mortality differences.

Results: Among 2,055 patients, 1,441 (70.1%) had at least one culture obtained in addition to antibiotic treatment. Among patients without cultures, 163 (26.6%) had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) ≥ 2 on admission, compared to 528 (36.6%) among patients with cultures obtained (difference: 5.7-14.3). The 28-day mortality was 7.3% and 7.7%, respectively (difference: -2.1-2.9). Age, SOFA and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were the most important prognostic factors in both groups.

Conclusions: Defining suspected infections using cultures and antibiotics may introduce bias in sepsis research. Data sources relying on these criteria should be validated to examine their applicability.

Funding: The Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and the Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospital Research Fund.

Trial registration: Not relevant.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Danish medical journal
Danish medical journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
78
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content. DMJ will publish the following articles: • Original articles • Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses • PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences • DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信