Observational studyRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2017
Anaerobic antibiotic usage for pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit.
Observational study in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community-acquired pneumonia associated with influenza co-infection caused by fusobacterium necrophorum: a case report and literature review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Review
- In critically ill patients, anti-anaerobic antibiotics increase risk of adverse clinical outcomes.The European respiratory journal · 2023Article
- Identifying Risk Factors for Aspiration in Patients Hospitalized with Community-Acquired Pneumonia.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Article
- Redundant Anaerobic Antimicrobial Prescriptions in German Acute Care Hospitals: Data from a National Point Prevalence Survey.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Anaerobic antibiotic usage for pneumonia in the medical intensive care unit.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePneumonia is a common admitting diagnosis in the intensive care unit (ICU). When aspiration is suspected, antibiotics to cover anaerobes are frequently used, but in the absence of clear risk factors, current guidelines have questioned their role. It is unknown how frequently these guidelines are followed.
methodsWe conducted a single-centre observational study on practice patterns of anaerobic antibiotic use in consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with aspiration pneumonia (Asp), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP).
resultsA total of 192 patients were studied (Asp: 20, HCAP: 107, CAP: 65). Overall, 59 patients received anaerobic antibiotics (Asp: 90%, HCAP: 28%, CAP 17%) but a significant proportion of these patients did not meet criteria to receive them. Inappropriate anaerobic antibiotic use was 12/20 for Asp, 27/107 for HCAP and 9/65 for CAP. Mortality probability model III at zero hours (MPM0) score and a diagnosis of Asp were predictors of receiving inappropriate anaerobic antibiotics. Receiving inappropriate anaerobic antibiotics was associated with a longer ICU length of stay (LOS; 7 days (interquartile range (IQR): 7-21) vs 4 days (IQR:2-9), P = 0.017).
conclusionFor patients in the ICU admitted with pneumonia, there is a high occurrence of inappropriately prescribed anaerobic antibiotics, the use of which was associated with a longer ICU LOS.
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.