ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
Survey of infectious diseases providers reveals variability in duration of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of Gram-negative bloodstream infections.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial treatment for 7 versus 14 days in patients with bacteremia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Infection · 2025Pooled it
- Shorter versus longer-duration antibiotic treatments for immunocompetent patients with bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Therapy Duration for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: An Evidence-Based Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Variability in Durations of Therapy for Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections and Factors Associated With Prolonged Durations.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Review
- Impact of specialty on the self-reported practice of using oral antibiotic therapy for definitive treatment of bloodstream infections.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Can the Future of ID Escape the Inertial Dogma of Its Past? The Exemplars of Shorter Is Better and Oral Is the New IV.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Is shorter always better? The pros and cons of treating Gram-negative bloodstream infections with 7 days of antibiotics.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrials supporting shorter durations of antibiotic therapy for Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI) have recently been published. However, adoption of these findings into practice is unclear given limited eligibility criteria and relatively large non-inferiority margins of these studies. To better understand contemporary management of GN-BSI, we conducted an international survey of infectious diseases (ID) specialists.
methodsWe developed and disseminated an online survey to assess practice patterns involving treatment duration of GN-BSI, including providers from 28 countries. χ
resultsIn total, 277 ID specialists completed the survey (64% physicians, 31% pharmacists). The median reported duration of antibiotics was 7 days (IQR, 7-10 days) for all GN-BSI sources. Thirty percent of providers typically recommend durations that differ by ≥7 days depending on the source of GN-BSI, and 71% treat ≥10 days for at least one source. In an adjusted model, factors associated with increased duration included intra-abdominal (+1.01 days, 95% CI 0.57-1.45 days;
conclusionsThere is extensive heterogeneity in duration of therapy for treating GN-BSI, particularly with respect to source of GN-BSI. Investigations into appropriate treatment durations for different GN-BSI sources are needed.
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.