ArticleSurgical infections2010
Critical analysis of empiric antibiotic utilization: establishing benchmarks.
Article in Surgical infections, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of treatment outcomes among hospitalised patients with skin and soft tissue infections: a prospective observational study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Transportability of bacterial infection prediction models for critically ill patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Clinical utility of prior positive cultures to optimize empiric antibiotic therapy selection: A cross-sectional analysis.New microbes and new infections · 2023Article
- A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU.Journal of intensive care · 2021Article
- Predictive modeling of bacterial infections and antibiotic therapy needs in critically ill adults.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020Article
- Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: Appropriate Measures and Metrics to Study their Impact.Current treatment options in infectious diseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimWe critically evaluated empiric antibiotic practice in the surgical and trauma intensive care unit (STICU) with three specific objectives: (1) To characterize empiric antibiotics practice prospectively; (2) to determine how frequently STICU patients started on empiric antibiotics subsequently have a confirmed infection; and (3) to elucidate the complications associated with unnecessary empiric antibiotic therapy.
methodsWe collected data prospectively using the Surgical Intensive Care-Infection Registry (SIC-IR) including all 1,185 patients admitted to the STICU for >2 days from March 2007 through May 2008. Empiric antibiotics were defined as those initiated because of suspected infections.
resultsThe mean patient age was 56 years and 62% were male. The mean STICU length of stay was eight days, and the mortality rate was 4.6%. Empiric antibiotics were started for 26.3% of the patients. The average length of antibiotic use was three days. Of the 312 patients started on empiric antibiotics, only 25.6% were found to have an infection. Factors associated with correctly starting empiric antibiotics were a longer STICU stay (5 vs. 3 days), prior antibiotics (29% vs. 17%), and mechanical ventilation (93% vs. 79%). Patients who were started on antibiotics without a subsequent confirmed infection were compared with patients not given empiric antibiotics. Incorrect use of empiric antibiotics was associated with younger age (p < 0.001), more STICU days (10.6 vs. 5.9 days; p < 0.001), more ventilator days (p < 0.001), more development of acute renal failure (24.1% vs. 12.1%; p < 0.001), and a significant difference in mortality rate (8.6% vs. 3.2%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsAfter admission to the STICU, 26% of patients received at least one course of empiric antibiotics. Only 25.6% of these patients were confirmed to have an infection. These results provide key benchmark data for the critical care community to improve antibiotic stewardship.
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.