ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2021
Antimicrobial guidelines in clinical practice: incorporating the ethical perspective.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.