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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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