ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2022
Impact of
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ERS/ESCMID state-of-the-science statement on the role of rapid diagnostic tests for the diagnosis and management of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections.The European respiratory journal · 2026Review
- Pneumonia after Solid Organ Transplantation.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Urinary Antigen Testing for Respiratory Infections: Current Perspectives on Utility and Limitations.Infection and drug resistance · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited data support use of pneumococcal urinary antigen testing (PUAT) for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) as an antimicrobial stewardship tool. At our institution, CAP guidelines and admission order set were standardized to include universal PUAT.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of adults hospitalized in 2019 who had PUAT performed. We compared incidence and timing of de-escalation in PUAT- positive vs -negative groups and described patients' outcomes.
resultsWe evaluated 910 patients, 121 (13.3%) of whom were PUAT positive. No difference in baseline characteristics, including severity of illness, was observed between groups. Initial de-escalation occurred in 82.9% and 81.2% of PUAT-positive and -negative patients, respectively (
conclusionsWe observed earlier de-escalation in the PUAT-positive group. This seems to be due to discontinuation of atypical rather than anti-MRSA or antipseudomonal coverage. Further antimicrobial stewardship interventions are warranted.
Indexed as
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.