Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21154391›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

Brenda Nazaré Gomes Silva, Régis B Andriolo, Alvaro N Atallah, Reinaldo Salomão

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 Guideline Sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and aftercare : Long version].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brenda Nazaré Gomes SilvaBrazilian Cochrane Centre, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Pedro de Toledo, 598, Vl. Clementino, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 04039-001.
Régis B Andriolo
Alvaro N Atallah
Reinaldo Salomão
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversidade do Estado do Pará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock ranges from 27% to 54%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy and thus reducing mortality. However, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment with a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by either changing the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination according to the patient's microbial culture results.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock caused by any micro-organism. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 8); MEDLINE via PubMed (from inception to August 2010); EMBASE (from inception to August 2010); LILACS (from inception to August 2010); Current Controlled Trials and bibliographic references of relevant studies. We also contacted the main authors in the area. We applied no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials comparing de-escalation (based on culture results) versus standard therapy for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality (at 28 days, hospital discharge or the end of the follow-up period). Studies including patients initially treated with an empirical but not adequate antimicrobial therapy were not considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors planned to independently select and extract data and evaluate methodological quality of all studies. We planned to use relative risk (risk ratio) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use the random-effects statistical model when the estimate effects of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsWe retrieved 436 references via the search strategy. No randomized controlled trials testing de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock could be included in this review. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no adequate, direct evidence as to whether de-escalation of antimicrobial agents is effective and safe for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. Therefore, it is not possible to either recommend or not recommend the de-escalation of antimicrobial agents in clinical practice for septic patients. This uncertainty warrants further research via randomized controlled trials or cohort studies.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansSepsisShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID21154391
OpenAlexW4211176527

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.