Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34235435›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2021

Antimicrobial guidelines in clinical practice: incorporating the ethical perspective.

Merel Lambregts, Babette Rump, Fabienne Ropers, Martijn Sijbom, Mariska Petrignani, Leo Visser, Martine de Vries, Mark de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Merel LambregtsDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-9115
Babette RumpNational Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Diseases Control (RIVM-LCI), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721MA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6573-0333
Fabienne RopersDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn SijbomDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7264-269X
Mariska PetrignaniDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Haaglanden Municipal Health Service, Westeinde 128, 2512HE Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Leo VisserDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Martine de VriesLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Medical Ethics and Law, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mark de BoerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGuidelines on antimicrobial therapy are subject to periodic revision to anticipate changes in the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance and new scientific knowledge. Changing a policy to a broader spectrum has important consequences on both the individual patient level (e.g. effectiveness, toxicity) and population level (e.g. emerging resistance, costs). By combining both clinical data evaluation and an ethical analysis, we aim to propose a comprehensive framework to guide antibiotic policy dilemmas.

methodsA preliminary framework for decision-making on antimicrobial policy was constructed based on existing literature and panel discussions. Antibiotic policy themes were translated into specific elements that were fitted into this framework. The adapted framework was evaluated in two moral deliberation groups. The moral deliberation sessions were analysed using ATLAS.ti statistical software to categorize arguments and evaluate completeness of the final framework.

resultsThe final framework outlines the process of data evaluation, ethical deliberation and decision-making. The first phase is a factual data exploration. In the second phase, perspectives are weighed and the policy of moral preference is formulated. Judgments are made on three levels: the individual patient, the patient population and society. In the final phase, feasibility, implementation and re-evaluation are addressed.

conclusionsThe proposed framework facilitates decision-making on antibiotic policy by structuring existing data, identifying knowledge gaps, explicating ethical considerations and balancing interests of the individual and current and future generations.

Identifiers

PMID34235435
PMCPMC8254525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.