Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35345436›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2022

Comparing optimization criteria in antibiotic allocation protocols.

Alastair Jamieson-Lane, Alexander Friedrich, Bernd Blasius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alastair Jamieson-LaneUniversity of Auckland, Mathematics, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7808-6236
Alexander FriedrichUniversity Medical center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Bernd BlasiusCarl von Ossietzky, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6558-1462

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians prescribing antibiotics in a hospital context follow one of several possible 'treatment protocols'-heuristic rules designed to balance the immediate needs of patients against the long-term threat posed by the evolution of antibiotic resistance and multi-resistant bacteria. Several criteria have been proposed for assessing these protocols; unfortunately, these criteria frequently conflict with one another, each providing a different recommendation as to which treatment protocol is best. Here, we review and compare these optimization criteria. We are able to demonstrate that criteria focused primarily on slowing evolution of resistance are directly antagonistic to patient health both in the short and long term. We provide a new optimization criteria of our own, intended to more meaningfully balance the needs of the future and present. Asymptotic methods allow us to evaluate this criteria and provide insights not readily available through the numerical methods used previously in the literature. When cycling antibiotics, we find an antibiotic switching time which proves close to optimal across a wide range of modelling assumptions.

Indexed as

antibiotic resistanceantimicrobial stewardshipcompartment modelhospital-acquired infectionsmathematical models

Identifiers

PMID35345436
PMCPMC8941386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.