Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28127641›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017

Assessment of linezolid prescriptions in three French hospitals.

C Dentan, E Forestier, M Roustit, S Boisset, S Chanoine, O Epaulard, P Pavese

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of the rational prescription of linezolid, the prevalence of thrombocytopenia and major drug interactions in patients with cardiovascular diseases: are there any cautions?Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C DentanService de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. Cdentan@chu-grenoble.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1732-6771
E ForestierService de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie, Chambéry, France.
M RoustitPharmacologie, Université Grenoble Alpes; Pôle Recherche, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
S BoissetLaboratoire de Bactériologie-Hygiène, Institut de Biologie et de Pathologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
S ChanoineInstitute of Advanced Biosciences (IAB), Centre de Recherche UGA - INSERM U1209 - CNRS UMR 5309, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
O EpaulardService de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
P PaveseService de Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCentre Hospitalier Métropole Savoie · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of linezolid to treat gram-positive cocci infections is increasing in France. Linezolid is approved in pneumonia and complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Overuse and misuse of linezolid can favor the emergence and spreading of linezolid-resistant strains. We aimed to assess the appropriateness of linezolid use in French hospitals. This is a multicenter, retrospective study conducted in three tertiary care hospitals. Appropriateness of linezolid indications and adequacy (composite score concerning dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring) were assessed. Over a three-month period, all prescriptions of linezolid were extracted and analyzed by two independent infectious disease experts. Among the 81 initial prescriptions that were evaluated, indication was appropriate in 48% of cases. Among those, 51% complied with international guidelines. Fifty-seven percent of the prescriptions were adequate regarding dosage, route of administration and blood monitoring. Overall, 23% of prescriptions combined both appropriateness and adequacy. The most frequent reasons for inappropriateness were the possibility of choosing narrower-spectrum antibiotics and the empirical use of linezolid in severe sepsis or septic shock. Initial treatment was the most frequently appropriate in bone and joint infection cases (p = 0.001). Our study shows that even if modalities of use were mostly correct, appropriateness of linezolid indications is low. Educational programs are mandatory to improve practices, as well as clinical studies to better assess the efficacy and safety of linezolid in clinical situations other than pneumonia or complicated skin and soft tissue infections.

Indexed as

Drug UtilizationPrescriptionsAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleFranceGuideline AdherenceHumansLinezolidMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersAnti-Bacterial AgentsLinezolid

Identifiers

PMID28127641
OpenAlexW2582111752

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.