ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015
Evaluating antibiotic stewardship programs in patients with bacteremia using administrative data: a cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Inappropriate Administration of Empirical Antibiotics on Mortality in Adults With Bacteraemia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Appropriateness of empirical antibiotics: risk factors of adult patients with sepsis in the ICU.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When introducing new antibiotic guidelines for empirical treatment of bacteremia, it is imperative to evaluate the performance of the new guideline. We examined the utility of administrative data to evaluate the effect of new antibiotic guidelines and the prognostic impact of appropriate empirical treatment. We categorized 2,008 adult patients diagnosed with bacteremia between 2010 and 2012 according to whether they received cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones (old regimen) or not (new regimen). We used administrative data to extract individual level data on mortality, readmission, and appropriateness of treatment, and computed adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 30-day mortality and post-discharge readmission by regimen and appropriateness of treatment. In total, 945 (47.1%) were treated by the old regimen and 1,063 (52.9%) by the new. The median length of stay (8 days) did not differ by regimen and neither did the proportion of those receiving appropriate empirical treatment (84.1% vs. 85.5%). However, fewer patients with the new regimen were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; 3.8% vs. 12.0%) and they had lower 30-day mortality (16.4% vs. 23.4%). The adjusted 30-day mortality HR for appropriate versus inappropriate treatment was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62-1.01) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.66-1.05) for the new versus the old regimen. The HR for 30-day readmission for appropriate versus inappropriate treatment was 0.91 (95% CI 0.73-1.13) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.87-1.25) for the new versus the old regimen. This study demonstrates that administrative data can be useful for evaluating the effect and quality of new bacteremia treatment guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25894986What 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.