Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29264367›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2017

Antibiotic consumption and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates, some parallelism but some discrepancies.

David Nora, Pedro Póvoa

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Factors associated with ventilator-associated events: an international multicenter prospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis: an update.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
    Review
  19. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David NoraPolyvalent Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Lisbon, Portugal.
Pedro PóvoaPolyvalent Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Lisbon, Portugal.
Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common infection in intensive care units (ICUs) but its clinical definition is neither sensitive nor specific and lacks accuracy and objectivity. New defining criteria were proposed in 2013 by the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) in order to more accurately conduct surveillance and track prevention progress. Although there is a consistent trend towards a decrease in VAP incidence during the last decade, significant differences in VAP rates have been reported and are persistently lower in NHSN and other American reports (0.0 to 4.4 VAP per 1,000 ventilator-days in 2012) compared to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) data (10 VAP per 1,000 ventilator-days in 2014). In the United States, VAP has been proposed as an indicator of quality of care in public reporting, and the threat of financial penalties for this diagnosis has put pressure on hospitals to minimize VAP rates that may lead to artificial lower values, independently of patient care. Although prevention bundles may contribute for encouraging reductions in VAP incidence, both pathophysiologic and epidemiologic factors preclude a zero-VAP rate. It would be expected from the trend of reduction of VAP incidence that the consumption of antibiotics would also decrease in particular in those hospitals with lowest VAP rates. However, ICU reports show a steadily use of antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia in 15% of patients and both ECDC and NHSN data on antibiotic consumption showed no significant trend. Knowledge of bacterial epidemiology and resistance profiles for each ICU has great relevance in order to understand trends of antibiotic use. The new NHSN criteria provide a more objective and quantitative data based VAP definition, including an antibiotic administration criterion, allowing, in theory, a more comprehensive assessment and a reportable benchmark of the observed VAP and antibiotic consumption variability.

Indexed as

Antibioticintensive care unit (ICU)ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)

Identifiers

PMID29264367
PMCPMC5721221
OpenAlexW2760528888

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.