ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Antibiotic stewardship program in Intensive Care Unit: First report from Iran.
Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial stewardship interventions in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region Countries: a scoping review of clinical, economic, and consumption outcomes.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Rational Use of Broad-Spectrum Antibiotics According to Regulatory Guidelines in Hospitalized Patients: A Descriptive Study.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFew data regarding antibiotic stewardship programs in critically ill patients are available. In the present study, the consequence of changing an empirical antibiotic regimen from a carbapenem (meropenem) to a noncarbapenem antibiotic (piperacillin-tazobactam) was evaluated in critically ill patients with a suspicion of sepsis.
methodsThis open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted during May 2015-January 2017 at the general Intensive Care Unit of the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran. In this study, a carbapenem (meropenem) or a noncarbapenem (piperacillin-tazobactam) antibiotic was considered as an empirical antibiotic regimen in 100 critically ill patients with a suspicion of sepsis. Clinical response and bacterial eradication were defined as primary and secondary outcomes of the study, respectively. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, and independent sample
resultsDuring the first 72 h of the antibiotic course, the number of patients with clinical response was comparable between piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem groups (21 [42%] and 25 [50%], respectively,
conclusionsUsing a carbapenem (meropenem) instead of a noncarbapenem (piperacillin-tazobactam) as an empirical antibiotic regimen did not affect clinical response and bacterial eradication rates in critically ill patients with a suspicion of sepsis.
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.