MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382133227 · doi:10.7759/cureus.40954

Clinical Impacts and Risk Factors for Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4382133227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khadejah M Alshahrani, Afnan Z Alhuwaishel, Norah M Alangari, Malak A Asiri, Norah A Al-Shahrani, Osama Jamaan Mohammed Alzahrani, Abdulaziz Y Ayedh, Meshari Mari Qitmah

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyBloodstream infectionInfection controlCentral lineCohort studyMEDLINEEmergency medicineHealth careIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is defined as a primary bloodstream infection (BSI) in a patient that had a central line within the 48-hour period before the development of the BSI and is not bloodstream-related to an infection at another site. CLABSI is a common healthcare-associated infection and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Methods This systematic review included studies published within the past 13 years that examined risk factors and clinical impact variables associated with CLABSI, using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)/National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria for defining catheter-associated infection, and included participants of all ages. The terms "CLABSI," "central line-associated bloodstream infection," "risk factors," "predictors," "morbidity," "mortality," "healthcare costs," and "length of hospital stay" were used to find relevant publications on PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. The quality assessment of the included publications utilized the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies. Results After the full-text screening, we identified 15 articles that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of these studies were of good quality and had a low risk of bias based on our bias assessment. The studies included a total of 32,198 participants and covered a time period from 2010 to 2023. The mean age of the male patients included in the studies ranged from 0.1 months to 69.1 years. All of the included studies were either observational cohort studies, cross sectional studies, case-control studies, or case reports. The major study parameters/outcomes extracted were risk factors, CLABSI-associated mortality, hospital cost, length of hospital stay, and catheter days. With respect to predisposing factors, multilumen access catheters were identified as risk factors in three studies, use of more than one central venous catheter per case in four studies, hematologic malignancy in three studies, catheterization duration in four studies, surgical complexity in four studies, length of ICU stays in three studies, and parenteral nutrition in two studies. Conclusion The decision to place a venous device should be carefully considered by evaluating individual risk factors for the development of CLABSI. This is important due to the potential for severe clinical consequences and significant healthcare expenses associated with this complication.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207