MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395030756 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296723

Risk factors of central catheter bloodstream infections in intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4395030756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Huang, Qiaoling Chang, Yanhui Zhou, Li Liao

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Commission of Hunan Province
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineCochrane LibraryOdds ratioConfidence intervalMEDLINEInternal medicineCohort studyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Central catheter bloodstream infections (CRBSI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections. However, few factors are generally accepted and some studies have conflicting finding about some factors, possibly caused by limitation associated with an individual study. This study was to identify risk factors for CRBSI in intensive care units. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of science and EMBASE databases and the 4 top Chinese-language databases, including WanFang data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) as of July 2023. Case control and cohort studies were included. Two authors independently screened the literature and evaluated the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The pooled effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The Cochrane Q (χ2) and I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and each risk factor was tested for its robustness using fixed- or random-effects models. FINDINGS: A total of 32 studies enrolled, among which eleven factors were identified, they were divided into two categories: modifiable and unmodifiable factors. Modifiable factors: duration of catheterization (≥ 5d) (OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.41-3.03), duration of catheterization (≥ 7d) (OR: 3.62, 95%CI: 2.65-4.97), duration of catheterization (≥ 14d)(OR: 4.85, 95%CI: 3.35-7.01), total parenteral nutrition (OR: 2.27,95%CI: 1.56-3.29), use of multiple-lumen catheters(OR: 3.41, 95%CI: 2.27-5.11), times of tube indwelling (OR: 3.50, 95%CI: 2.93-4.17), length of ICU stay (OR: 4.05, 95%CI: 2.41-6.80), the position of indwelling(OR: 2.41, 95%CI: 2.03-2.85); Unmodifiable factors: APACHEII scores (OR: 1.84, 95%CI: 1.54-2.20), Age≥ 60 years old (OR: 2.19, 95%CI: 1.76-2.73), the extensive use of antibiotic (OR: 3.54, 95%CI: 1.65-7.61), Diabetes mellitus (OR: 3.06, 95%CI: 2.56-3.66), Immunosuppression (OR: 2.87, 95%CI: 2.08-3.95). CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions targeting the above modifiable factors may reduce the risk of developing CRBSI in ICU and improve the clinical outcome of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.041
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations36
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207