A Scenario-Based Survey of Clinician Recommendations for Follow-up Blood Cultures in Patients with Varying Risk of Persistent Gram-Negative Bacteremia

Clicks: 4
ID: 328062
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #230 of 233 articles by views in Open forum infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 233 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background The utility of follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs) in patients with gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is unsettled. In practice, the use of FUBCs is variable. Understanding practice variation and drivers of FUBCs ordering may clarify how clinicians identify patients at high risk for persistent GNB. Methods We conducted a global survey (2/21/2024–4/9/2024) of healthcare workers using 10 hypothetical clinical scenarios to assess FUBC decision-making in GNB. Scenarios varied clinical factors and risk of persistence using the published AIMS scoring tool (Antibiotics, Infection source, Medical conditions, Serratia). The anonymous web-based survey was distributed via listservs, email, and social media. Inter-respondent agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa (κ). Mixed-effect logistic regression identified factors associated with FUBC recommendations. Results Among 864 clinicians from 50 countries, 691 (80%) provided recommendations across 10 scenarios (6,910 recommendations). Most were physicians (86.5%) and infectious disease specialists (79.7%). FUBCs were frequently recommended, with >50% of clinicians endorsing FUBCs in 6 of 10 scenarios. Overall agreement was fair (κ=0.26; 95% CI, 0.10–0.43). In adjusted analyses, factors associated with FUBC recommendations included female respondent sex (aOR 1.40; p=0.042), higher AIMS score (aOR 1.78 per point; p<0.0001), older patient age (aOR 2.90; p<0.0001), inadequate source control (aOR 4.77; p<0.0001), and clinical instability (aOR 114.99; p<0.0001). Conclusions In this survey study, clinicians frequently recommended FUBCs, particularly in clinical vignettes with higher AIMS scores, inadequate source control, and clinical instability. Only fair agreement across risk-stratified scenarios suggests substantial practice variation and supports the need for prospective studies to understand when and in whom FUBCs should be used.
Reference Key
openalex_W7211967598 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Roberta Monardo, Halie Hotchkiss, Rebecca North, Olivia Lambert, Ilan S. Schwartz, Marco Ripa, Vance G Fowler, Joshua T. Thaden, Stacey A. Maskarinec
Journal Open forum infectious diseases
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ofid/ofag562
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofag562
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.