ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2019
Assessment of the Appropriateness of Ceftazidime Use in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital, Northern Ethiopia.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in Ethiopian hospitals: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Pooled it
- Ceftazidime prescription and antibiotic resistance patterns in a tertiary care hospital.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Attitudes and Practices of the Use of Third-Generation Cephalosporins among Medical Doctors Practicing in Cameroon.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeftazidime is nowadays one of the most commonly used antibiotics due to its high antibacterial potency, wide spectrum of activity, and low potential for toxicity. However, the global trend shows huge misuse of ceftazidime.
objectiveThis study was conducted to assess the appropriateness of ceftazidime use and to identify areas of intervention to prevent inappropriate use in different wards of Ayder Compressive Specialized Hospital, a tertiary teaching Hospital, Mekelle-Ethiopia.
methodsA facility-based prospective cross-sectional study design was steered on 327 patients who received ceftazidime during their hospitalization in the selected wards from February 1 to April 30, 2019.
resultsIn the assessment of the appropriateness of ceftazidime use, 2,084 (70.8%) were appropriate. Appropriateness of indication was 295 (90.2%), the effectiveness of ceftazidime use was 221 (67.6%), correct dose of ceftazidime use was 264 (80.4%), and the correct frequency of ceftazidime use was 230 (70.3%). Its use was empiric in 275 participants (84.1%) and specific in 52 (15.9%) participants. The most common indication for ceftazidime use was uncomplicated pneumonia, at 112 (34.3%). One hundred and seventy-one (52.3%) participants had intervention to prevent inappropriate use of ceftazidime. Changing the drug combination (96, 29.4%), increasing the dose (13, 4%), decreasing the dose (21, 6.4%), holding the (21, 6.4%), and discontinuation of ceftazidime (20, 6.1%) were among the interventions.
conclusionThis study revealed that more than one-fourth of the ceftazidime use was inappropriate. This may lead to the emergence of resistant pathogens which in turn lead to treatment failure and increased the cost of therapy. Therefore, adherence to current evidence-based guidelines and initiating antimicrobial stewardship are recommended.
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.