Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519751›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

Antimicrobial Use in US Hospitals: Comparison of Results From Emerging Infections Program Prevalence Surveys, 2015 and 2011.

Shelley S Magill, Erin O'Leary, Susan M Ray, Marion A Kainer, Christopher Evans, Wendy M Bamberg, Helen Johnston, Sarah J Janelle, Tolulope Oyewumi, Ruth Lynfield and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The intestinal microbiota impacts nutritional immunity and resistance toProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

24 authors.

Shelley S MagillDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Erin O'LearyDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Susan M RayDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Marion A KainerTennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Christopher EvansTennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Wendy M BambergColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Helen JohnstonColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sarah J JanelleColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Tolulope OyewumiColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Ruth LynfieldMinnesota Department of Health, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Jean RainbowMinnesota Department of Health, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Linn WarnkeMinnesota Department of Health, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Joelle NadleCalifornia Emerging Infections Program, Oakland, California, USA.
Deborah L ThompsonNew Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
Shamima SharminNew Mexico Department of Health, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
Rebecca PierceOregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Alexia Y ZhangOregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Valerie OcampoOregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Meghan MaloneyConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Samantha GreissmanConnecticut Emerging Infections Program, Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Lucy E WilsonMaryland Department of Health and University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ghinwa DumyatiNew York Emerging Infections Program and University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3634-2841
Jonathan R EdwardsDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Emerging Infections Program Hospital Prevalence Survey Team

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the 2011 US hospital prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use 50% of patients received antimicrobial medications on the survey date or day before. More hospitals have since established antimicrobial stewardship programs. We repeated the survey in 2015 to determine antimicrobial use prevalence and describe changes since 2011.

methodsThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states each recruited ≤25 general and women's and children's hospitals. Hospitals selected a survey date from May-September 2015. Medical records for a random patient sample on the survey date were reviewed to collect data on antimicrobial medications administered on the survey date or day before. Percentages of patients on antimicrobial medications were compared; multivariable log-binomial regression modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with antimicrobial use.

resultsOf 12 299 patients in 199 hospitals, 6084 (49.5%; 95% CI, 48.6-50.4%) received antimicrobials. Among 148 hospitals in both surveys, overall antimicrobial use prevalence was similar in 2011 and 2015, although the percentage of neonatal critical care patients on antimicrobials was lower in 2015 (22.8% vs 32.0% [2011]; P = .006). Fluoroquinolone use was lower in 2015 (10.1% of patients vs 11.9% [2011]; P < .001). Third- or fourth-generation cephalosporin use was higher (12.2% vs 10.7% [2011]; P = .002), as was carbapenem use (3.7% vs 2.7% [2011]; P < .001).

conclusionsOverall hospital antimicrobial use prevalence was not different in 2011 and 2015; however, differences observed in selected patient or antimicrobial groups may provide evidence of stewardship impact.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipCross InfectionAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentsanti-infective agentsantimicrobial stewardshipepidemiologyhospitalsprevalence

Identifiers

PMID32519751
PMCPMC7976440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.