ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Infectious Disease Team Review Using Antibiotic Switch and Discharge Criteria Shortens the Duration of Intravenous Antibiotic: A Single-Center Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Thailand.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physicians' understanding of antibiotic intravenous-to-oral switching-a qualitative study in Suzhou, China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Criteria to achieve safe antimicrobial intravenous-to-oral switch in hospitalised adult populations: a systematic rapid review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Development of National Antimicrobial Intravenous-to-Oral Switch Criteria and Decision Aid.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStrategies have been recommended to optimize early antibiotic (ATB) switching from intravenous (IV) to oral ATB. This study aimed to determine whether infectious disease (ID) team review using ATB switch and discharge criteria would shorten the duration of IV ATB and length of hospital stay (LOS).
methodsThis cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 8 general medical wards as cluster units at Siriraj Hospital during January-October 2019. The ID team review with checklist criteria was performed on the third, fifth, and seventh day of IV-ATB treatment to determine (1) the suitability of switching to oral ATB or outpatient parenteral ATB therapy and (2) early discharge for patients receiving IV-ATB versus control. The primary outcomes were LOS and the duration or days of therapy (DOT) or defined daily dose (DDD) of IV-ATB therapy.
resultsFour wards each were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups (46 patients/cluster, 184 patients/arm). No significant difference was observed between intervention and controls for median duration of IV-ATB therapy (7 vs 7 days) and LOS (9 vs 10 days). A significantly shorter duration of IV ATB was observed in patients without sepsis in the intervention group when measured by DOT (7 vs 8 days,
conclusionsInfectious disease team review using checklist criteria did not result in a shorter duration of IV-ATB and LOS in overall patients. Further study is needed to determine whether faster culture turnaround time or advanced testing will reduce the duration of IV-ATB therapy.
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.