Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26194026›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2015

Pros and cons of using biomarkers versus clinical decisions in start and stop decisions for antibiotics in the critical care setting.

Werner C Albrich, Stephan Harbarth

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Werner C AlbrichDivision of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Werner.albrich@kssg.ch.
Stephan HarbarthDivision of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Stephan.harbarth@hcuge.ch.
Kantonsspital St. Gallen · CHUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently receive prolonged or even unnecessary antibiotic therapy, which selects for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Over the last decade there has been great interest in biomarkers, particularly procalcitonin, to reduce antibiotic exposure.

methodsIn this narrative review, we discuss the value of biomarkers and provide additional information beyond clinical evaluation in order to be clinically useful and review the literature on sepsis biomarkers outside the neonatal period. Both benefits and limitations of biomarkers for clinical decision-making are reviewed.

resultsSeveral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown the safety and efficacy of procalcitonin to discontinue antibiotic therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In contrast, there is limited utility of procalcitonin for treatment initiation or withholding therapy initially. In addition, an algorithm using procalcitonin for treatment escalation has been ineffective and is probably associated with poorer outcomes. Little data from interventional studies are available for other biomarkers for antibiotic stewardship, except for C-reactive protein (CRP), which was recently found to be similarly effective and safe as procalcitonin in a randomized controlled trial. We finally briefly discuss biomarker-unrelated approaches to reduce antibiotic duration in the ICU, which have shown that even without biomarker guidance, most patients with sepsis can be treated with relatively short antibiotic courses of approximately 7 days.

conclusionsIn summary, there is an ongoing unmet need for biomarkers which can reliably and early on identify patients who require antibiotic therapy, distinguish between responders and non-responders and help to optimize antibiotic treatment decisions among critically ill patients. Available evidence needs to be better incorporated in clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Predictive Value of TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideCritical CareCritical IllnessDecision MakingHumansProtein PrecursorsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersCALCA protein, humanCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideProtein PrecursorsAntibiotic stewardshipCRPProcalcitoninRespiratory tract infectionsSepsisShort-course therapy

Identifiers

PMID26194026
OpenAlexW1021865947

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.