ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2015
Treatment of bacterial skin infections in ED observation units: factors influencing prescribing practice.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Quality Improvement Initiative to Decrease Hospital Admission for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections From an Observation Unit.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- Article
- Characterizing barriers to antibiotic stewardship for skin and soft-tissue infections in the emergency department using a systems engineering framework.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022Article
- Use of oral tetracyclines in the treatment of adult outpatients with skin and skin structure infections: Focus on doxycycline, minocycline, and omadacycline.Pharmacotherapy · 2021Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThe Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) publishes evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. How closely physicians follow these guidelines is unknown, particularly in the emergency department observation unit (EDOU) where increasing numbers of patients are treatment for these infections. Our objectives were to describe (1) the antibiotic treatment patterns EDOU patients, (2) physicians' adherence to the IDSA guidelines, and (3) factors that influence physician's prescribing practices.
methodsThis prospective cohort enrolled adult patients discharged from an EDOU at an academic medical center after treatment for a skin or soft tissue infection. Information was collected from chart review and patient interview pertaining to the patient's sociodemographic characteristics, presenting illness, and antibiotic treatment regimens. Treatment regimens were compared with national guidelines.
resultsThe study included 193 patients of which only 43% were treated according to IDSA guidelines, 42% were overtreated, and 15% were undertreated. Women were more likely to be undertreated (relative risk, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.06), whereas patients 50 years and older were at risk for overtreatment (relative risk, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.02). Women also received shorter courses of antibiotic therapy with an average of 9.6 days of treatment compared with 10.6 days for men.
conclusionsPhysician antibiotic prescribing practices demonstrated poor adherence to IDSA guidelines and were influenced by the patient's age and sex. Standardized antibiotic protocols for treatment of skin and soft tissue infections to IDSA guidelines in the EDOU would minimize physician bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.