ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Antimicrobial Time-Out for Vancomycin by Infectious Disease Physicians Versus Clinical Pharmacists: A Before-After Crossover Trial.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Where antibiotic time-outs work: department- and ward-stratified effects of a pharmacist-led anti-MRSA time-out.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Impact of the sequential implementation of a pharmacy-driven methicillin-resistantInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Article
- Impact of Antibiotic Time-Outs in Multidisciplinary ICU Rounds for Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Patient Survival: A Controlled Before-and-After Study.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- The role of the clinical pharmacist in antimicrobial stewardship in Asia: A review.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study assessed the impact of time-out on vancomycin use and compared the strategy's efficacy when led by pharmacists versus infectious disease (ID) physicians at a tertiary care center.
methodsTime-out, consisting of a telephone call to inpatient providers and documentation of vancomycin use >72 hours, was performed by ID physicians and clinical pharmacists in the Departments of Medicine and Surgery/Critical Care. Patients in the Department of Medicine were assigned to the clinical pharmacist-led arm, and patients in the Department of Surgery/Critical Care were assigned to the ID physician-led arm in the initial, 6-month phase and were switched in the second, 6-month phase. The primary outcome was the change in weekly days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days (PD), and vancomycin use was compared using interrupted time-series analysis.
resultsOf 587 patients receiving vancomycin, 132 participated, with 79 and 53 enrolled in the first and second phases, respectively. Overall, vancomycin use decreased, although the difference was statistically nonsignificant (change in slope, -0.25 weekly DOT per 1000 PD; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.68 to 0.18;
conclusionsVancomycin time-out was moderately effective, and clinical pharmacist-led time-out with surgery/critical care patients substantially reduced vancomycin use.
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.