Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26891697›Full record

ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2016

Evaluation of ceftriaxone utilization in medical and emergency wards of Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital: a prospective cross-sectional study.

Alemayehu Sileshi, Admasu Tenna, Mamo Feyissa, Workineh Shibeshi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Ceftriaxone-induced Agranulocytosis.European journal of case reports in internal medicine · 2021
    Article
  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

4 authors.

Alemayehu SileshiDepartment of Pharmacy, Arsi University, Asela, Ethiopia. alemayehusileshi45@yahoo.com.
Admasu TennaDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. kadmasen@gmail.com.
Mamo FeyissaDepartment of pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. mamo.feyissa@aau.edu.et.
Workineh ShibeshiDepartment of pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. workineh.shibeshi@aau.edu.et.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCeftriaxone is one of the most commonly used antibiotics due to its high antibacterial potency, wide spectrum of activity and low potential for toxicity. However, the global trend shows misuse of this drug. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the appropriateness of ceftriaxone use in medical and emergency wards of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital.

methodsA prospective cross-sectional study was conducted by reviewing medication records of patients receiving ceftriaxone during hospitalization at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital between February 1 and June 30, 2014. Drug use evaluation was conducted to determine whether ceftriaxone was being used appropriately based on six criteria namely indication for use, dose, frequency of administration, duration of treatment, drug-drug interaction, culture and sensitivity test. The evaluation was made as per the protocol developed from current treatment guidelines.

resultsThe total of 314 records of patients receiving ceftriaxone was reviewed. The prescribing rate of ceftriaxone was found to be very high (58 % point prevalence). Ceftriaxone use was empiric in 274 (87.3 %) cases. The most common indication for ceftriaxone use was pneumonia; observed in 110 (35.0 %) cases. The most common daily dosage, frequency of administration and duration of treatment with ceftriaxone were 2 g (88.9 %), twice-daily (98.4 %) and 8-14 days (46.2 %), respectively. Inappropriate use of ceftriaxone was observed in most of cases (87.9 %), the greatest proportion of which was attributed to inappropriate frequency of administration (80.3 %), followed by absence of culture and sensitivity test (53.2 %).

conclusionThis study revealed that the inappropriate use of ceftriaxone was very high in the medical and emergency wards of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. This may lead to emergence of resistant pathogens which in turn lead to treatment failure and increased cost of therapy. Therefore, adherence to current evidence-based guidelines is recommended.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftriaxoneCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic ErrorsDrug Administration ScheduleEmergency Service, HospitalEthiopiaFemaleHospitals, SpecialHospitals, TeachingHumansInappropriate PrescribingAnti-Bacterial AgentsCeftriaxone

Identifiers

PMID26891697
PMCPMC4759859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.