Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 751

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

The Clinical Significance of Positive Blood Cultures: A Comprehensive Analysis of 500 Episodes of Bacteremia and Fungemia in Adults. I. Laboratory and Epidemiologic Observations

Weinstein, M. P., Reller, L. B., Murphy, J. R., Lichtenstein, K. A.·1983·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Five hundred episodes of septicemia were reviewed, with emphasis on laboratory and epidemiologic findings. The isolation of facultative and anaerobic gram-negative bacilli, fungi, and gram-positive cocci (except viridans streptococci and Staphylococcus epidermidis) almost always indicated true bacteremia, whereas the isolation of aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacilli, including Clostridium species, often represented contamination. More than 99% of all episodes were detected when two samples of blood (a total of 30 ml) were cultured. The five most common isolates were Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The incidence of septicemia was highest among medical patients and lowest among obstetric-gynecologic patients. Two-thirds of all episodes were nosocomial; S. aureus, enterococci, facultative gram-negative bacilli, and fungi were especially common nosocomial pathogens. The microorganisms isolated varied with the hospital service; polymicrobial episodes were especially common among surgical patients and transplant recipients. The most common sources of bacteremia were the respiratory, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tracts; however, the source was unknown in nearly one-third of episodes. Microorganisms causing septicemia in neutropenic and nonneutropenic patients were not different; however, polymicrobial infections were more frequent in the presence of neutropenia. After antimicrobial susceptibility data became available, therapy was appropriate greater than 90% of the time.

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 · 10.1093/clinids/5.1.35

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 751

Metadata

Authors
Weinstein, M. P., Reller, L. B., Murphy, J. R., & Lichtenstein, K. A.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
1983-01-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
35-53
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2020955171
Cited by
751
References
1
FWCI
14.82
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 Clinical Significance of Positive Blood Cultures: A Comprehensive Analysis of 500 Episodes of Bacteremia and Fungemia in Adults. I. Laboratory and Epidemiologic Observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinids/5.1.35
The paper
Weinstein, M. P., Reller, L. B., Murphy, J. R., & Lichtenstein, K. A. (1983). The Clinical Significance of Positive Blood Cultures: A Comprehensive Analysis of 500 Episodes of Bacteremia and Fungemia in Adults. I. Laboratory and Epidemiologic Observations. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/5.1.35

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.