The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: A pooled analysis of five prospective, observational studies
Open accessAbstract
Summary Objectives Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common, often fatal infection. Our aim was to describe how its clinical presentation varies between populations and to identify common determinants of outcome. Methods We conducted a pooled analysis on 3395 consecutive adult patients with S. aureus bacteraemia. Patients were enrolled between 2006 and 2011 in five prospective studies in 20 tertiary care centres in Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. Results The median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 50–75 years) and 63.8% were male. 25.4% of infections were associated with diabetes mellitus, 40.7% were nosocomial, 20.6% were caused by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), although these proportions varied significantly across studies. Intravenous catheters were the commonest identified infective focus (27.7%); 8.3% had endocarditis. Crude 14 and 90-day mortality was 14.6% and 29.2%, respectively. Age, MRSA bacteraemia, nosocomial acquisition, endocarditis, and pneumonia were independently associated with death, but a strong association was with an unidentified infective focus (adjusted hazard ratio for 90-day mortality 2.92; 95% confidence interval 2.33 to 3.67, p < 0.0001). Conclusion The baseline demographic and clinical features of S. aureus bacteraemia vary significantly between populations. Mortality could be reduced by assiduous MRSA control and early identification of the infective focus.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Self-citationAntimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens
De Oliveira, D. M. P., Forde, B. M., Kidd, T. J., Harris, P. N. A., Schembri, M. A., Beatson, S. A., Paterson, D. L., & Walker, M. J. (2020) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00181-19 · Cited by 2,078
Kolaczkowska, E., Jenne, C. N., Surewaard, B. G. J., Thanabalasuriar, A., Lee, W.-Y., Sanz, M.-J., Mowen, K., Opdenakker, G., & Kubes, P. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms7673 · Cited by 584
Kern, W. V., & Rieg, S. (2020) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2019.10.031 · Cited by 355
Self-citationShuping, L. L., Kuonza, L., Musekiwa, A., Iyaloo, S., & Perovic, O. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188216 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaasch, A. J., Barlow, G., Edgeworth, J. D., Fowler, V. G., Hellmich, M., Hopkins, S., Kern, W. V., Llewelyn, M. J., Rieg, S., Rodriguez-Baño, J., Scarborough, M., Seifert, H., Soriano, A., Tilley, R., Tőrők, M. E., Weiß, V., Wilson, A. P. R., & Thwaites, G. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Infection
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 242-251
- ISSN
- 0163-4453 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142015145
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: A pooled analysis of five prospective, observational studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jinf.2013.10.015
- The paper
- Kaasch, A. J., Barlow, G., Edgeworth, J. D., Fowler, V. G., Hellmich, M., Hopkins, S., Kern, W. V., Llewelyn, M. J., Rieg, S., Rodriguez-Baño, J., Scarborough, M., Seifert, H., Soriano, A., Tilley, R., Tőrők, M. E., Weiß, V., Wilson, A. P. R., & Thwaites, G. E. (2014). Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection: A pooled analysis of five prospective, observational studies. Journal of Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2013.10.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.