2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Infectious disease consultation for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
127
0
13

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 190 publications
(151 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
7
127
0
13
Order By: Relevance
“…The situation in our hospital reflects the situation of many hospitals, and this intervention can easily be implemented in many other hospitals. In our knowledge, this study is among the largest studies performed in the setting of a general hospital [23]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The situation in our hospital reflects the situation of many hospitals, and this intervention can easily be implemented in many other hospitals. In our knowledge, this study is among the largest studies performed in the setting of a general hospital [23]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, echocardiography may not directly influence treatment but could indicate better adherence to guidelines in the treatment of SaB such as more appropriate screening for sources of infection and choice/duration of antibiotics. In a meta‐analysis, Vogel et al showed that infectious disease consultation in patients with SaB decreased mortality. This was attributed to better adherence to guidelines including more frequent use of echocardiography.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low ID involvement and a priority towards multidrug-resistant Gram-negatives are possible reasons for a reduced first-line use of anti-MRSA compounds in the ICU. Although ICU patients displayed higher rates of inadequate first-line therapy and risk factors associated with increased mortality (e.g., reduced ID consultation and endocarditis) [6], overall mortality was comparable between groups. This may be related to a limited number of patients with septic shock in the ICU group; furthermore, low Charlson scores and higher source control in the ICU group compared with the non-ICU group may have contributed to achieve positive outcomes.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%