ArticleInfection2012
Clinical benefit of infectious diseases consultation: a monocentric prospective cohort study.
Article in Infection, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a pediatric infectious disease consultation service on timely step-down to oral antibiotic treatment for bone and joint infections.Infection · 2023Article
- Post-sign-off events in infectious disease consultation and the incidence of nonadherence to infectious disease recommendations in the post-sign-off period: A retrospective cohort study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Article
- The value of specialist care-infectious disease specialist referrals-why and for whom? A retrospective cohort study in a French tertiary hospital.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Infectious diseases consultations can make the difference: a brief review and a plea for more infectious diseases specialists in Germany.Infection · 2016Review
- Impact of infectious diseases consultation on the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in children.BMJ open · 2014Observational
- Evaluation of an infectious disease consultation programme in a German tertiary care hospital.Infection · 2013Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the association of clinical outcomes with the adherence to Infectious Diseases Consultation (IDC) recommendations.
methodsFrom March to August 2009, all patients hospitalized in our hospital, for whom an IDC was requested, were prospectively enrolled. The adherence to recommendations was ascertained after 72 h from the IDC. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical cure rate 1 month after the IDC, according to the adherence to IDC recommendations.
resultsAn IDC was requested for 258 inpatients. The infectious disease (ID) was most often non-severe (66%), community-acquired (62%), and already under treatment (47%). IDC proposals were most often formulated via a formal consultation (57%). Physicians' adherence to IDC recommendations was 87% for diagnostic tests and 90% for antibiotherapy. In the multivariate analysis, severe infections and direct consultation were independently associated with increased odds of adherence to recommendations for performing diagnostic tests (odds ratios 5.4 and 4.0, respectively). The overall clinical cure rate was 84% and this did not differ according to the adherence to IDC recommendations for diagnostic tests (84.3 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.15) and antimicrobial treatment (84.8 vs. 77.8%, p = 0.34).
conclusionsSome limitations of the study may explain the lack of evidence of a clinical benefit, such as the very high level of adherence to IDC recommendations and the low proportion of severe infections. However, clinical improvement was always better when recommendations were followed. Therefore, further larger randomized multicentric studies including more patients suffering from more severe IDs may be needed in order to demonstrate a clinical impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22723076What 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.