The case for de-escalation in antimicrobial therapy: time to change our strategy in the management of septic shock?

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Optimizing Antibiotic Stewardship in Nursing Homes: A Narrative Review and Recommendations for Improvement.Drugs & aging · 2015
   Review
2. How to treat severe infections in critically ill neutropenic patients?BMC infectious diseases · 2014
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  De-escalation of empirical therapy is associated with lower mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.2014
• Comment on
  De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis: results from an observational study.2014

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as