Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30740221›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2019

Use of microbiology tests in the era of increasing AMR rates- a multicentre hospital cohort study.

Brita Skodvin, Jannicke S Wathne, P Christoffer Lindemann, Stig Harthug, Roy M Nilsen, Esmita Charani, Heidi Syre, Baard R Kittang, Lars K S Kleppe, Ingrid Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance-Lessons learnt from India, South Africa, and UK.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2020
    Review
  12. Observational
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Brita Skodvin1Norwegian Advisory Unit for Antibiotic Use in Hospitals, Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Haukelandsveien 22, 5021 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7377-8591
Jannicke S Wathne1Norwegian Advisory Unit for Antibiotic Use in Hospitals, Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Haukelandsveien 22, 5021 Bergen, Norway.
P Christoffer Lindemann2Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 87, 5020 Bergen, Norway.
Stig Harthug1Norwegian Advisory Unit for Antibiotic Use in Hospitals, Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Haukelandsveien 22, 5021 Bergen, Norway.
Roy M Nilsen5Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, 5063 Bergen, Norway.
Esmita Charani6NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, 8th Floor Commonwealth Building, Imperial College London, Du Cane Road, London, W12 ONN UK.
Heidi Syre7Department of Medical Microbiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Gerd Ragna Bloch Thorsens gate 8, 4011 Stavanger, Norway.
Baard R Kittang8Department of Medicine, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Ulriksdal 8, 5009 Bergen, Norway.
Lars K S Kleppe9Department of Infectious Diseases and Unit for Infection Prevention and Control, Department of Research and Education, Stavanger University Hospital, Gerd Ragna Bloch Thorsens gate 8, 4011 Stavanger, Norway.
Ingrid Smith10Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization (WHO), Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Haukeland University Hospital · NOStavanger University Hospital · NODeaconess Hospital · USPublic Health England · GBWestern Norway University of Applied Sciences · NOWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective use of microbiology test results may positively influence patient outcomes and limit the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, studies indicate that their potential is not fully utilized. We investigated microbiology test ordering practices and the use of test results for antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. Methods: A multicentre cohort study was conducted during five months in 2014 in Medical departments across three hospitals in Western Norway. Patients treated with antibiotics for sepsis, urinary tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, lower respiratory tract infections or acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included in the analysis. Primary outcome measures were degree of microbiology test ordering, compliance with microbiology testing recommendations in the national antibiotic guideline and proportion of microbiology test results used to inform antibiotic treatment. Data was obtained from electronic- and paper medical records and charts and laboratory information systems. Results: Of the 1731 patient admissions during the study period, mean compliance with microbiology testing recommendations in the antibiotic guideline was 89%, ranging from 81% in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to 95% in patients with sepsis. Substantial additional testing was performed beyond the recommendations with 298/606 (49%) of patients with lower respiratory tract infections having urine cultures and 42/194 (22%) of patients with urinary tract infections having respiratory tests. Microbiology test results from one of the hospitals showed that 18% (120/672) of patient admissions had applicable test results, but only half of them were used for therapy guidance, i.e. in total, 9% (63/672) of patient admissions had test results informing prescription of antibiotic therapy. Conclusions: This study showed that despite a large number of microbiology test orders, only a limited number of tests informed antibiotic treatment. To ensure that microbiology tests are used optimally, there is a need to review the utility of existing microbiology tests, test ordering practices and use of test results through a more targeted and overarching approach.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic prescribingAntimicrobial resistanceCohort studyHospitalsMicrobiology testing

Identifiers

PMID30740221
PMCPMC6360791
OpenAlexW2912545666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.