Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34258686›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

The MOBILISE study: utilisation of ambulatory pumps in the inpatient setting to administer continuous antibiotic infusions-a randomised controlled trial.

K L McCarthy, T Harris-Brown, E J Smits, A Legg, M D Chatfield, D L Paterson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K L McCarthyInfectious Diseases Department, Level 6 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cnr Butterfield St and Herston Road, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia. Kate.mccarthy@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6173-9659
T Harris-BrownUniversity of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
E J SmitsRECOVER Injury Research Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
A LeggInfectious Diseases Department, Level 6 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cnr Butterfield St and Herston Road, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia.
M D ChatfieldUniversity of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
D L PatersonInfectious Diseases Department, Level 6 Joyce Tweddell Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Cnr Butterfield St and Herston Road, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the inpatient setting, antibiotics are generally administered via bedside pumps with multiple daily dosing. Utilisation of a continuous antibiotic infusion (CAI) instead might have patient and nursing satisfaction, workflow efficiencies and infection control benefits. We aimed to study the utilisation of CAI in the inpatient setting for routine antibiotic administration. Patients receiving a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) for antibiotic administration were screened for the study. The patients were randomised to either (1) standard pump and intermittent antibiotic administration (IAA) or (2) CAI via an ambulatory pump. An accelerometer placed on the ankle was used to assess patient activity. Nursing and patient satisfaction surveys were also carried out. Forty patients met the study criteria for enrolment with 21 patients being enrolled in the CAI arm of the study. One hundred and five days of accelerometer recordings were available for analysis. The geometric mean activity was 45 min/day in the standard arm and 64 min/day in the CAI arm. This represented a 42% (95% CI: -14 to 133%, p = 0.16) difference in activity between the two groups. Nursing staff reported that they spent less time throughout their shift attending the antibiotic line or pump in patients who were in the CAI arm of the study (p < 0.001). In addition, patients in this arm of the study were more likely to recommend this method of administration of antibiotics to a family member (p =0.0001). The MOBILISE study showed nursing and patient satisfaction when CAI were utilised in the inpatient setting. A statistically non-significant difference in mobility was seen. The trial was registered (28/03/2018) with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000452291).

Indexed as

Infusion Pumps, ImplantableAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsDrug Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticHospitalInfusionMobility

Identifiers

PMID34258686
OpenAlexW3182367817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.