ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2017
Antibiotic consumption in laboratory confirmed vs. non-confirmed bloodstream infections among very low birth weight neonates in Poland.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A longitudinal analysis of nosocomial bloodstream infections among preterm neonates.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Article
- Effect of Weekly Antibiotic Round on Antibiotic Use in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit as Antibiotic Stewardship Strategy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Can surgical site infections be controlled through microbiological surveillance? A three-year laboratory-based surveillance at an orthopaedic unit, retrospective observatory study.International orthopaedics · 2019Observational
- Antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance in Poland; findings and implications.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNewborns are a population in which antibiotic consumption is extremely high. Targeted antibiotic therapy should help to reduce antibiotics consumption. The aim of this study was an assessment of antibiotic usage in bloodstream infections treatment in the Polish Neonatology Surveillance Network (PNSN) and determining the possibility of applying this kind of data in infection control, especially for the evaluation of standard methods of microbiological diagnostics.
methodsData were collected between 01.01.2009 and 31.12.2013 in five teaching NICUs from the PNSN. The duration of treatment in days (DOT) and the defined daily doses (DDD) were used for the assessment of antibiotics consumption.
resultsThe median DOT for a single case of BSI amounted to 8.0 days; whereas the median consumption expressed in DDD was 0.130. In the case of laboratory confirmed BSI, median DOT was 8 days, and consumption-0.120 DDD. Median length of therapy was shorter for unconfirmed cases: 7 days, while the consumption of antibiotics was higher-0.140 DDD (p < 0.0001). High consumption of glycopeptides expressed in DOTs was observed in studied population, taking into account etiology of infection.
conclusionsEven application of classical methods of microbiological diagnostics significantly reduces the consumption of antibiotics expressed by DDD. However, the high consumption of glycopeptides indicates the necessity of applying rapid diagnostic assays. Nevertheless, the assessment of antibiotic consumption in neonatal units represents a methodological challenge and requires the use of different measurement tools.
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.