ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2021
Early antimicrobial stewardship team intervention on appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy in suspected sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in a Low-Middle Income Country: Impact of an Antibiotic Guideline for Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Global Impact of Sepsis: Epidemiology, Recognition, Management, and Health System Challenges.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of antibiotic allergy labels on timely and appropriate antibiotics for sepsis in the emergency department.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2023Article
- Impact of medical and pharmaceutical interventions on anti-infective prescriptions: an observational study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Observational
- Commentary: Synergy Between Beta-Lactams and Lipo-, Glyco-, and Lipoglycopeptides is Independent of the Seesaw Effect in Methicillin-ResistantFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere has been concern that the imperative to administer rapid antimicrobials in septic patients may result in inappropriate antimicrobial use. We aimed to determine the impact of early antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team intervention in patients with Medical Emergency Team (MET) calls for suspected sepsis.
methodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial of non-ICU inpatients who had a MET call for suspected sepsis. Patients were randomized to standard care (management of antimicrobial therapy by the treating team) or early targeted intervention (AMS review 48 h post-MET call). The primary outcome was appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy 72 h post-MET call, as determined by a panel of blinded infectious diseases physicians.
resultsIn total, 90 patients were enrolled; 45 were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 45 to the control group. More patients in the AMS intervention group were receiving appropriate antimicrobials 72 h following the MET call (67% versus 44%,
conclusionsAMS team intervention resulted in significant improvement in appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy following MET calls due to suspected sepsis. Targeted AMS review should be implemented to support early antimicrobial de-escalation and optimization in patients with suspected sepsis.
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.