How good are clinicians in predicting the presence of Pseudomonas spp. in diabetic foot infections? A prospective clinical evaluation

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The most frequently prescribed empirical antibiotic agents for mild and moderate diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are amino‐penicillins and second‐generation cephalosporins that do not cover Pseudomonas spp. Many clinicians believe they can predict the involvement of Pseudomonas in a DFI by visual and/or olfactory clues, but no data support this assertion. Methods In this prospective observational study, we separately asked 13 experienced (median 11 years) healthcare workers whether they thought the Pseudomonas spp. would be implicated in the DFI. Their predictions were compared with the results of cultures of deep/intraoperative specimens and/or the clinical remission of DFI achieved with antibiotic agents that did not cover Pseudomonas. Results Among 221 DFI episodes in 88 individual patients, intraoperative tissue cultures grew Pseudomonas in 22 cases (10%, including six bone samples). The presence of Pseudomonas was correctly predicted with a sensitivity of 0.32, specificity of 0.84, positive predictive value of 0.18 and negative predictive value 0.92. Despite two feedbacks of the interim results and a 2‐year period, the clinicians' predictive performance did not improve. Conclusion The combined visual and olfactory performance of experienced clinicians in predicting the presence of Pseudomonas in a DFI was moderate, with better specificity than sensitivity, and did not improve over time. Further investigations are needed to determine whether clinicians should use a negative prediction of the presence of Pseudomonas in a DFI, especially in settings with a high prevalence of pseudomonal DFIs.

Keywords

• clinical prediction
• diabetic foot infections
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa