Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2020
Determinants of empirical antipseudomonal antibiotic prescription for adults with pneumonia in the emergency department.
Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outer membrane permeability ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Weighing options: empiric antibiotic use and stewardship opportunities in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntipseudomonal antibiotics should be restricted to patients at risk of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. However, the indications in different guidelines on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are discordant. Our objectives were to assess the prevalence of antipseudomonal antibiotic prescriptions and to identify determinants of empirical antibiotic choices in the emergency department.
methodsObservational, retrospective, one-year cohort study in hospitalized adults with pneumonia. Antibiotic choices and clinical and demographic data were recorded on a standardized form. Antibiotics with antipseudomonal activity were classified into two groups: a) β-lactam antipseudomonals (β-APS), including carbapenems, piperacillin / tazobactam or cefepime (in monotherapy or combination) and b) monotherapy with antipseudomonal quinolones.
resultsData were recorded from 549 adults with pneumonia, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa being isolated in only nine (1.6%). Most (85%) prescriptions were compliant with SEPAR guidelines and 207 (37%) patients received antibiotics with antipseudomonal activity (14% β-APS and 23% levofloxacin). The use of β-APS was independently associated with ICU admission (OR 8.16 95% CI 3.69-18.06) and prior hospitalization (OR 6.76 95% CI 3.02-15.15), while levofloxacin was associated with negative pneumococcal urine antigen tests (OR 3.41 95% CI 1.70-6.85) but negatively associated with ICU admission (OR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.86). None of these factors were associated with P aeruginosa episodes. In univariate analysis, prior P aeruginosa infection/colonization (2/9 vs 6/372, p = 0.013), severe COPD (3/9 vs 26/372, p = 0.024), multilobar involvement (7/9 vs 119/372, p = 0.007) and prior antibiotic (6/9 vs 109/372, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with P aeruginosa episodes.
conclusionsAntipseudomonal prescriptions were common, in spite of the very low incidence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The rationale for prescription was influenced by both severity-of-illness and pneumococcal urine antigen test (levofloxacin) and prior hospitalization and ICU admission (β-APS). However, these factors were not associated with P aeruginosa episodes. Only prior P aeruginosa infection/colonization and severe COPD seem to be reliable indicators in clinical practice.
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.