ReviewPharmacoEconomics1995
Cephalosporin utilisation review and evaluation.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical misuse of drugs may result in preventable patient morbidity and mortality, costly remedial care, additional costs for diagnosis and management of iatrogenic disease and unnecessary wastage of healthcare resources. In recognition of this problem, drug utilisation evaluation (DUE) has been recommended as a method for identifying inappropriate or unnecessary drug use and for promoting rational therapy. Growing concern over the widespread misuse of antibiotics, together with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and escalating expenditures, has resulted in antibiotics being the drugs most frequently chosen for DUE projects. Cephalosporin DUE is well documented as being successful for modifying cephalosporin use and for containing drug expenditure. Studies range from isolated projects to ongoing programmes that comprehensively evaluate cephalosporin use and the impact of corrective strategies. Sensible use of antibiotics requires a clear understanding of the infectious process, the clinical pharmacology of anti-infective agents and an appreciation of clinical and microbiological monitoring and assessment. Audit criteria that incorporate the above principles, and which are described in the studies reviewed in this article, will be useful for other investigators. Through its DUE programme, the Royal Adelaide Hospital has investigated the use of cephalosporins, including ceftriaxone, ceftazidime and cefoxitin. These reviews have resulted in improvements in cephalosporin use and significant cost savings. Alterations to cephalosporin use that were recommended following these reviews have not resulted in adverse changes to post-operative infection rates, clinical outcomes or adverse drug reactions. This experience, combined with that of other investigators, serves as a useful model for the promotion of rational and economical therapy with cephalosporins and other drug groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.