ArticleBMC research notes2019
Antimicrobial stewardship effectiveness on rationalizing the use of last line of antibiotics in a short period with limited human resources: a single centre cohort study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating academic detailing as an antibiotic stewardship intervention in primary healthcare settings in Croatia.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Perspectives of primary care physicians on academic detailing for antimicrobial stewardship: feasibility and impact assessment.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Mapping knowledge and comprehension of antimicrobial stewardship and biosecurity among veterinary students.PloS one · 2020Article
- Antibiotic stewardship team in a Tunisian university hospital: A four-year experience.La Tunisie medicaleArticle
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAntibiotics reserve (ARs) are given as a last line of treatment when other antibiotics are no longer effective. Rising threat of antimicrobial resistance makes growing use of ARs a real problem to patient safety. A single centre interventional cohort study was conducted in order to measure impact on clinical outcomes of A-team programme with limited human resources in a short period. A-team programme started on 01. September 2017.
resultsIn 3 months preintervention and 3 months intervention period, from 3038 and 3156 hospitalized adult patients, 249 (59% of them were male, median age = 69 years) and 96 (51% of them were male, median age = 70 years) received parenteral ARs. Total duration of hospitalization of patients on AR was reduced from 28 to 17 days of hospitalization on 100 patient-days (OR = 1.92; 95% CI 1.83-2.01; p < 0.001) with no statistical significant difference in rehospitalisation due to infection of patients that were treated with ARs within 2 months after discharge. Despite short period of time and limited human resources, A-team restrictive interventions rationalised parenteral AR use and led to positive impact on clinical outcomes. These results could help our and other A-teams in similar situation in continuing with the programme to bring more evidence.
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.