The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Earlier Positivity of Central-Venous- versus Peripheral-Blood Cultures Is Highly Predictive of Catheter-Related Sepsis
Open accessAbstract
To diagnose catheter-related sepsis without removing the catheter, we evaluated the differential positivity times of cultures of blood drawn simultaneously from central venous catheter and peripheral sites. In a 450-bed cancer reference center, simultaneous central- and peripheral-blood cultures were prospectively performed for patients with suspicion of catheter-related sepsis over an 18-month period. Data for 64 patients for whom the same microorganisms were found when central- and peripheral-blood samples were cultured were retrospectively reviewed by two independent physicians blinded to the differential positivity time values in order to establish or refute the diagnosis of catheter-related sepsis. The diagnosis was established in 28 cases, refuted in 14, and indeterminate in the remaining 22. The differential positivity time was significantly greater for patients with catheter-related sepsis ( P < 10 −4 ). A cutoff limit of +120 min had 100% specificity and 96.4% sensitivity for the diagnosis of catheter-related sepsis. These results strongly suggest that measurement of the differential positivity time might be a reliable tool facilitating the diagnosis of catheter-related sepsis in patients with an indwelling catheter.
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
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock
Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Annane, D., Gerlach, H., Opal, S. M., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Douglas, I. S., Jaeschke, R., et al. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827e83af · Cited by 9,694
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 · Cited by 6,621
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002255 · Cited by 3,652
Mermel, L. A., Allon, M., Bouza, E., Craven, D. E., Flynn, P., O'Grady, N. P., Raad, I. I., Rijnders, B. J. A., Sherertz, R. J., & Warren, D. K. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/599376 · Cited by 3,638
Freifeld, A. G., Bow, E. J., Sepkowitz, K. A., Boeckh, M. J., Ito, J. I., Mullen, C. A., Raad, I. I., Rolston, K. V., Young, J.-A. H., & Wingard, J. R. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir073 · Cited by 3,463
Metadata
- Authors
- Blot, F., Schmidt, E., Nitenberg, G., Tancrède, C., Leclercq, B., Laplanche, A., & Andremont, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 105-109
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1595859263
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.80
- 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: Earlier Positivity of Central-Venous- versus Peripheral-Blood Cultures Is Highly Predictive of Catheter-Related Sepsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.36.1.105-109.1998
- The paper
- Blot, F., Schmidt, E., Nitenberg, G., Tancrède, C., Leclercq, B., Laplanche, A., & Andremont, A. (1998). Earlier Positivity of Central-Venous- versus Peripheral-Blood Cultures Is Highly Predictive of Catheter-Related Sepsis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.1.105-109.1998
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.
