Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31560686›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort.

Inger van Heijl, Valentijn A Schweitzer, C H Edwin Boel, Jan Jelrik Oosterheert, Susanne M Huijts, Wendelien Dorigo-Zetsma, Paul D van der Linden, Marc J M Bonten, Cornelis H van Werkhoven

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Inger van HeijlDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Tergooi hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0160-715X
Valentijn A SchweitzerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C H Edwin BoelDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan Jelrik OosterheertDepartment of Internal Medicine & Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Susanne M HuijtsDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wendelien Dorigo-ZetsmaDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Tergooi hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Paul D van der LindenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Tergooi hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Marc J M BontenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis H van WerkhovenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLTergooi · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Observational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature. Of 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. Crude 30-day mortality was 3.5% (9/257) and 10.9% (107/986) in the de-escalation and continuation groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.19-0.79). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.56 (95%CI: 0.27-1.12) to 1.04 (95%CI: 0.49-2.23), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. This study suggests the effect of de-escalation on mortality needs further well-designed prospective research to determine effect size more accurately.

Indexed as

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsCommunity-Acquired InfectionsComorbidityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPneumoniaPublic Health SurveillanceTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31560686
PMCPMC6764693
OpenAlexW2976052519

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.