Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31434563›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2019

A systematic review of the impact of antifungal stewardship interventions in the United States.

Emily Hart, Melanie Nguyen, Meghan Allen, Collin M Clark, David M Jacobs

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The pathobiology of human fungal infections.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Stewardship: it's going viral.Infection prevention in practice · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The Gordian Knot ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Emily HartDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 316 Pharmacy Building, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Melanie NguyenDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 316 Pharmacy Building, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Meghan AllenDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 316 Pharmacy Building, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Collin M ClarkDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 316 Pharmacy Building, Buffalo, NY, USA.
David M JacobsDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 316 Pharmacy Building, Buffalo, NY, USA. dmjacobs@buffalo.edu.

Funding

Institutional Career DevelopmentKL2TR001413 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI DUBOCOVICH, MARGARITA L · 2015 to 2024
$4.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a widely recognized public health threat, and stewardship interventions to combat this problem are well described. Less is known about antifungal stewardship (AFS) initiatives and their influence within the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate evidence on the impact of AFS interventions on clinical and performance measures.

methodsA systematic review of English language studies identified in the PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed through November 2017. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. Search terms included antifungal stewardship, antimicrobial stewardship, Candida, candidemia, candiduria, and invasive fungal disease. Eligible studies were those that described an AFS program or intervention occurring in the US and evaluated clinical or performance measures.

resultsFifty-four articles were identified and 13 were included. Five studies evaluated AFS interventions and reported clinical outcomes (mortality and length of stay) and performance measures (appropriate antifungal choice and time to therapy). The remaining eight studies evaluated general stewardship interventions and reported data on antifungal consumption. All studies were single center, quasi-experimental with varying interventions across studies. AFS programs had no impact on mortality (3 of 3 studies), with an overall rate of 27% in the intervention group and 23% in the non-intervention group. Length of stay (5 of 5) was also similar between groups (range, 9-25 vs. 11-22). Time to antifungal therapy improved in 2 of 5 studies, and appropriate choice of antifungal increased in 2 of 2 studies. Antifungal consumption was significantly blunted or reduced following stewardship initiation (8 of 8), although a direct comparison between studies was not possible due to a lack of common units.

conclusionThe available evidence suggests that AFS interventions can improve performance measures and decrease antifungal consumption. Although this review did not detect improvements in clinical outcomes, significant adverse outcomes were not reported.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntifungal AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipDrug UtilizationFemaleHumansInvasive Fungal InfectionsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedSurvival AnalysisUnited StatesAntifungal AgentsAntifungal agentsAntifungal stewardshipAntimicrobial stewardshipInvasive fungal disease

Identifiers

PMID31434563
PMCPMC6702721

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.