Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18392866›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2008

Limited efficacy of a nonrestricted intervention on antimicrobial prescription of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting: results of a randomized controlled trial.

M Masiá, C Matoses, S Padilla, A Murcia, V Sánchez, I Romero, A Navarro, I Hernández, F Gutiérrez

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M MasiáClinical Medicine Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Camí de la Almazara 11, 03203, Elche, Spain. marmasia@ya.com
C Matoses
S Padilla
A Murcia
V Sánchez
I Romero
A Navarro
I Hernández
F Gutiérrez
Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx · ESHospital General Universitario de Elche · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most interventions aimed at diminishing the use of antimicrobials in hospitals have focussed on newly introduced antibiotics and very few have been randomly controlled. We evaluated the impact on antibiotic consumption of an intervention without restrictions in antibiotic use, focussed on commonly used antibiotics with a controlled randomized trial. All new prescriptions of levofloxacin, carbapenems, or vancomycin in hospitalized patients were randomized to an intervention or a control group. Intervention consisted of an antibiotic regimen counselling targeted to match local antibiotic guidelines, performed using only patients' charts. Clinical charts of patients assigned to the control group were reviewed daily by a pharmacist. The primary endpoint was a reduction in consumption of the targeted antibiotics. Two hundred seventy-eight prescriptions corresponding to 253 patients were included: 146 were assigned to the intervention and 132 to the control group. Total consumption of the targeted antibiotics (median [IQR]) was slightly lower in the intervention (8 [4-12] defined daily doses [DDDs] per patient) than in the control group (10 [6-16] DDDs per patient; p = 0.04). No differences in number of DDDs were observed when antibiotics of substitution were included (11.05 [6-18.2] vs 10 [6-16.5] in the intervention and control groups, respectively, p = 0.13). The total number of days on treatment with the targeted antibiotics was lower in the intervention (4 [3-7] days per patient) than in the control group (6 [4-10] days per patient; p = 0.002). Differences in number of days on treatment only reached statistical significance in the prescriptions of carbapenems. There were no differences between intervention and control groups in terms of number of deaths, hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, or antibiotic costs. In this trial, an intervention without restrictions focussed on antimicrobial prescriptions of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting had a limited efficacy to reduce consumption and did not save costs. Future strategies to promote a more rational antimicrobial use should be evaluated with a randomized controlled design.

Indexed as

AgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsCounselingDrug PrescriptionsDrug UtilizationFemaleGuideline AdherenceHospitalsHumansLevofloxacinMaleMiddle AgedOfloxacinOrganizational PolicyVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsLevofloxacinOfloxacinVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID18392866
OpenAlexW1988232988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.