Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21486724›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2011

Antimicrobial treatment of "complicated" intra-abdominal infections and the new IDSA guidelines ? a commentary and an alternative European approach according to clinical definitions.

Christian Eckmann, M Dryden, P Montravers, R Kozlov, G Sganga

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [Enterococci and surgical site infections : Causal agent or harmless commensals?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Christian EckmannKlinikum Peine gGmbH, Academic Hospital of Medical University Hannover, Virchowstrasse 8h, 31226 Peine, Germany. christian.eckmann@klinikum-peine.de
M Dryden
P Montravers
R Kozlov
G Sganga
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITKlinikum Region Hannover · DERoyal Hampshire County Hospital · GBSmolensk State Medical University · RUUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, an update of the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections has been published. No guideline can cater for all variations in ecology, antimicrobial resistance patterns, patient characteristics and presentation, health care and reimbursement systems in many different countries. In the short time the IDSA guidelines have been available, a number of practical clinical issues have been raised by physicians regarding interpretation of the guidelines. The main debatable issues of the new IDSA guidelines are described as follows: The authors of the IDSA guidelines present recommendations for the following subgroups of "complicated" IAI: community-acquired intra-abdominal infections of mild-to-moderate and high severity and health care-associated intra-abdominal infections (no general treatment recommendations, only information about antimicrobial therapy of specific resistant bacterial isolates). From a clinical point of view, "complicated" IAI are better differentiated into primary, secondary (community-acquired and postoperative) and tertiary peritonitis. Those are the clinical presentations of IAI as seen in the emergency room, the general ward and on ICU. Future antibiotic treatment studies of IAI would be more clinically relevant if they included patients in studies for the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for the treatment of the above mentioned forms of IAI, rather than conducting studies based on the vague term "complicated" intra-abdominal infections. - The new IDSA guidelines for the treatment of resistant bacteria fail to mention many of new available drugs, although clinical data for the treatment of "complicated IAI" with new substances exist. Furthermore, treatment recommendations for cIAI caused by VRE are not included. This group of diseases comprises enough patients (i.e. the entire group of postoperative and tertiary peritonitis, recurrent interventions in bile duct surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis) to provide specific recommendations for such antimicrobial treatment. - A panel of European colleagues from surgery, intensive care, clinical microbiology and infectious diseases has developed recommendations based on the above mentioned clinical entities with the aim of providing clear therapeutic recommendations for specific clinical diagnoses. An individual patient-centered approach for this very important group of diseases with a substantial morbidity and mortality is essential for optimal antimicrobial treatment.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAnti-Infective AgentsEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPeritonitisAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID21486724
PMCPMC3352208
OpenAlexW2113721262

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.