ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2019
Tractable targets for meropenem-sparing antimicrobial stewardship interventions.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing in Gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infections: a real-world retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Suspected and Confirmed Internal External Ventricular Drain-Related Infections: A Prospective Multicenter United Kingdom Observational Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Impact of the Acceptance of the Recommendations Made by a Meropenem Stewardship Program in a University Hospital: A Pilot Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study.The Lancet. Microbe · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial rationing in orthopaedic surgery.Bone & joint research · 2020Article
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
backgroundAs meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally.
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions.
methodsPatients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed.
resultsA total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (
conclusionsIn real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility.
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.