Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Bacteremia in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospectively Validated Model

Bates, David W., Cook, E. Francis, Goldman, Lee, Lee, Thomas H.·1990·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a model for the prediction of bacteremia in hospitalized patients, and to identify subgroups of patients with a very low likelihood of bacteremia in whom a positive blood culture has a low positive predictive value. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with clinical data on 1516 episodes collected from a random sample of all patients who had blood cultures done at one institution. SETTING: Urban, tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Derivation set: 1007 blood culture episodes sampled from all blood cultures done on patients at Brigham and Women's Hospital between October 1988 and February 1989. Validation set: 509 episodes, May 1989 to June 1989. The unit of evaluation was the episode, defined as a 48-hour period beginning after a blood culture was drawn. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: True- and false-positive rates of blood cultures in the derivation set as assessed by independent reviewers were 7% (74 of 1007) and 8% (81 of 1007), respectively. Independent multivariate predictors of true bacteremia were temperature of 38.3 degrees C or higher, presence of a rapidly (less than 1 month) or ultimately (less than 5 years) fatal disease; shaking chills; intravenous drug abuse; acute abdomen on examination; and major comorbidity. In the low-risk group, defined by absence of these predictors, the misclassification rate of the model in the derivation set was 1% (4 of 303), and a positive blood culture had a positive predictive value of only 14% for true bacteremia. The model also identified a high-risk subset in which 16% (41 of 264) of episodes represented true bacteremia. The model was prospectively validated in 509 additional episodes, and the misclassification rate in the low-risk group was 2% (3 of 155). INTERVENTIONS: None. CONCLUSION: These findings provide a means of stratifying hospitalized patients according to their risk for bacteremia. If prospectively validated in other settings, this model may be helpful when deciding whether or not to do blood cultures or start antibiotic therapy and, when evaluating a positive blood culture, to determine whether or not it is a true-positive.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-113-7-495

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Bates, D. W., Cook, E. F., Goldman, L., & Lee, T. H.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1990-10-01
Volume
113
Issue
7
Pages
495-500
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2039609298
Cited by
261
References
9
FWCI
4.90
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: Predicting Bacteremia in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospectively Validated Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-113-7-495
The paper
Bates, D. W., Cook, E. F., Goldman, L., & Lee, T. H. (1990). Predicting Bacteremia in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospectively Validated Model. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-7-495

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.