ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2017
Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and evaluation of machine learning-based prediction-modelling for initial vancomycin serum concentrations in septic ICU patients using clinical health record data.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Sustainable implementation of antibiotic stewardship on a surgical intensive care unit evaluated over a 10-year period.Infection · 2020Observational
- [New Sepsis-3 definition : Do we have to treat sepsis before we can diagnose it from now on?]Der Anaesthesist · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn critically ill patients, length of antibiotic treatment can be effectively guided by procalcitonin (PCT) protocols. International sepsis guidelines and guidelines on antibiotic stewardship strategies recommend PCT as helpful laboratory marker for a rational use of antibiotics. A number of studies and meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of PCT-protocols for shortening antibiotic treatment without compromising clinical outcome in critically ill patients. But in clinical practice, there is still uncertainty how to interpret PCT levels and how to adjust antibiotic treatment in various infectious situations, especially in the perioperative period.
methodsThis narrative review gives an overview on the application of PCT-protocols in critically ill patients with severe bacterial infections on the basis of 5 case reports and the available literature. Beside strengths and limitations of this biomarker, also varying kinetics and different maximum values with regard to the infectious focus and pathogens are discussed.
resultsPCT-guided antibiotic treatment appears to be safe and effective. Most of the studies revealed a shorter antibiotic treatment without negative clinical outcomes. Cost effectiveness is still a matter of debate and effects on bacterial resistance due to shorter treatments, possible lower rates of drug-related adverse events, or decreased rates of Clostridium difficile infections are not yet evaluated.
conclusionGuidance of antibiotic treatment can effectively be supported by PCT-protocols. However, it is important to consider the limitations of this biomarker and to use PCT protocols along with antibiotic stewardship programmes and regular clinical rounds together with infectious diseases specialists.
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.