Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31592288›Full record

ArticlePharmacy practice

Agreement between units of measure for paediatric antibiotic utilisation surveillance using hospital pharmacy supply data.

Mona Mostaghim, Tom Snelling, Beata Bajorek

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mona MostaghimPharmacy Department, Sydney Children's Hospital; & Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW (Australia). mona.mostaghim@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9918-7765
Tom SnellingDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children; & Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines & Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Subiaco (Australia). tom.snelling@telethonkids.org.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4670-0638
Beata BajorekGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW (Australia). Beata.Bajorek@uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2532-7187
New South Wales Department of Health · AUThe Kids Research Institute Australia · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug utilisation studies from paediatric hospitals that do not have access to patient level data on medication use are limited by a lack of standardised units of measures that reflect the varying daily dosage requirements among patients. The World Health Organization's defined daily dose is frequently used in adult hospitals for benchmarking and longitudinal analysis but is not endorsed for use in paediatric populations.

objectiveExplore agreement between standard adult-based defined daily doses (DDD) and paediatric estimates of daily injectable antibiotic use in a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit that does not have access to individual patient-level data.

methodsHospital pharmacy antibiotic use reports and age-specific occupied bed-day data from 1 January 2010 to 31 May 2016 were extracted. Paediatric reference dosages and frequencies for antibiotics were defined and applied to three paediatric units of measure. Measures were applied to extracted data, agreement between antibiotic use measured in the adult DDD and each of the paediatric measures was assessed visually via Bland-Altman plots and linear regression for each antibiotic.

resultsThirty one different antibiotics were used throughout the study period. Despite varying daily dosages in grams, the daily use of vials was unchanged from birth to 18 years for thirteen antibiotics. Agreement between DDD and vial-based measures was closer than the total recommended daily dose that did not account for wastage during preparation and administration. Vial-based measures were unaffected by vial size changes due to drug shortage.

conclusionsAgreement between the DDD and vial-based measures of use supports the use of DDD for select antibiotics that may be targeted by antimicrobial stewardship programs. Vial based measures should be further explored in hospitals with single vial policies; detailed understanding of hospital practice is needed before inter-hospital comparisons are made.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipAustraliaDrug UtilizationHospitalHospitalsPediatricPharmacy ServiceQuality of Health CareReference StandardsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31592288
PMCPMC6763297
OpenAlexW2972310984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.