ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2020
How to measure hospital antibiotic consumption: comparison of two methods from data surveillance in France.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Antibiotic prescribing trends in German acute care hospitals from 2012/13 through 2021/22].Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic use (ABU) surveillance in healthcare facilities (HCFs) is essential to guide stewardship. Two methods are recommended: antibiotic consumption (ABC), expressed as the number of DDD/1000 patient-days; and prevalence of antibiotic prescription (ABP) measured through point prevalence surveys. However, no evidence is provided about whether they lead to similar conclusions.
objectivesTo compare ABC and ABP regarding HCF ranking and their ability to identify outliers.
methodsThe comparison was made using 2012 national databases from the antibiotic surveillance network and prevalence study. HCF rankings according to each method were compared with Spearman's correlation coefficient. Analyses included the ABU from entire HCFs as well as according to type, clinical ward and by antibiotic class and specific molecule.
resultsA total of 1076 HCFs were included. HCF rankings were strongly correlated in the whole cohort. The correlation was stronger for HCFs with a higher number of beds or with a low or moderate proportion of acute care beds. ABU correlation between ABC or ABP was globally moderate or weak in specific wards. Furthermore, the two methods did not identify the same outliers, whichever HCF characteristics were analysed. Correlation between HCF ranking varied according to the antibiotic class.
conclusionsBoth methods ranked HCFs similarly overall according to ABC or ABP; however, major differences were observed in ranking of clinical wards, antibiotic classes and detection of outliers. ABC and ABP are two markers of ABU that could be used as two complementary approaches to identify targets for improvement.
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.