ArticlePloS one2015
Evaluation of Antimicrobial Therapy of Blood Culture Positive Healthcare-Associated Infections in Children.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial consumption in a tertiary children's hospital in Finland (2003-2013).European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimKnowledge of the quality of antimicrobial therapy (AMT) used for invasive healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in paediatrics is scarce. Influence of the final information about the isolated pathogen on the subsequent targeted AMT was investigated in our study.
methodsData on 149 children (0-17 years) with blood culture positive HAIs were collected. The causative microbes under investigation were Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, streptococci, Gram negative rods, and mixed infections were likewise included. For adjusting the antimicrobial regimen, an expert panel evaluated the quality of the targeted AMT and the delay of 72 hours after final microbiology results. AMT was regarded as inappropriate if the pathogen was totally resistant to the used antimicrobials (i) or if the chosen therapy was of not optimal efficacy against the pathogen (ii).
results17% of the patients received inappropriate AMT. Half of these infections 13/26 (50%) were treated with an antimicrobial to which the isolate was resistant. Three (3/13, 23%) of these patients received antimicrobials which were totally ineffective according to in vitro data. Suboptimal or too broad spectrum AMT was administered to 13/26 (50%) patients. The most common causes of inappropriate use were the use of beta-lactams in oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis infections and vancomycin given in oxacillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infections.
conclusionApproximately 17% of the selected cohort received inappropriate AMT. More attention should be paid to the appropriate use of antimicrobials, and training of prescribers should be urgently provided.
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.