Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection

Leibovici, Shraga, Drucker, Konigsberger, Samra, Pitlik, Pitlik·1998·Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Abstract. Leibovici L, Shraga I, Drucker M, Konigsberger H, Samra Z, Pitlik SD (Rabin Medical Center, Petah‐Tiqva, and Tel‐Aviv University, Tel‐Aviv, Israel). The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection. J Intern Med 1998; 244: 379–86. Objectives: To test whether empirical antibiotic treatment that matches the in vitro susceptibility of the pathogen (appropriate treatment) improves survival in patients with bloodstream infections; and to measure the improvement. Design: Observational, prospective cohort study. Setting: University hospital in Israel. Subjects: All patients with bloodstream infections detected during 1988–94. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: In‐hospital fatality rate and length of hospitalization. Results: Out of 2158 patients given appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment, 436 (20%) died, compared with 432 of 1255 patients (34%) given inappropriate treatment (P = 0.0001). The median durations of hospital stay for patients who survived were 9 days for patients given appropriate treatment and 11 days for patients given inappropriate treatment. For patients who died, the median durations were 5 and 4 days, respectively (P < 0.05), for both comparisons. In a stratified analysis, fatality was higher in patients given inappropriate treatment than in those given appropriate treatment in all strata but two: patients with infections caused by streptococci other than Streptococcus gr. A and Streptoccocus pneumoniae (odds ratio (OR) of 1.0, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.4–2.5); and hypothermic patients (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.3–2.4). Even in patients with septic shock, inappropriate empirical treatment was associated with higher fatality rate (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0–2.7). The highest benefit associated with appropriate treatment was observed in paediatric patients (OR = 5.1, 95% CI = 2.4– 10.7); intra‐abdominal infections (OR = 3.8, 95% CI = 2.0–7.1); infections of the skin and soft tissues (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.8–5.6); and infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 1.7–5.1) and S. pneumoniae (OR = 2.6, 95% C = 1.1–5.9). On a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the contribution of inappropriate empirical treatment to fatality was independent of other risk factors (multivariable adjusted OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3–1.9). Conclusion: Appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment was associated with a significant reduction in fatality in patients with bloodstream infection.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1998.00379.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Leibovici, Shraga, Drucker, Konigsberger, Samra, Pitlik, & Pitlik
Venue
Journal of Internal Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-11
Volume
244
Issue
5
Pages
379-386
ISSN
  • 0954-6820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2796
OpenAlex
W1966853663
Cited by
685
References
1
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2796.1998.00379.x
The paper
Leibovici, Shraga, Drucker, Konigsberger, Samra, Pitlik, & Pitlik. (1998). The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection. Journal of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.1998.00379.x

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.