ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2022
Assessment of Intravenous versus Oral Antimicrobials in a Large Regional Health Authority.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using a planetary health lens to quantify intravenous use of bioequivalent antimicrobials when oral administration is feasible.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2026Article
- Oral versus intravenous antibiotics: Oral antibiotics are more cost-effective and may be safer than intravenous antibiotics for most infections in stable adults.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many antimicrobials given by the intravenous (IV) route have oral (PO) formulations with high oral bioavailability. The advantages of using the PO rather than the IV formulation include lower risk of adverse reactions, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower health care costs. Objectives: The primary objective was to determine the proportions of patients who received the IV and PO formulations of antimicrobials with high oral bioavailability. The secondary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients who were eligible to receive PO antimicrobials from the start of treatment, the proportion who qualified for IV-to-PO step-down, and areas of improvement to increase use of PO antimicrobials. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in hospitals in the Fraser Health Authority, British Columbia, between October 18, 2019, and March 5, 2020. Two hundred charts were randomly selected for patients who had received either azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, fluconazole, levofloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, metronidazole, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, or voriconazole. Results: Of the 200 patients, 124 (62.0%) received the PO formulations, while 76 (38.0%) received the IV formulations. Of the 76 patients receiving IV antimicrobials, 39 (51.3%; 95% confidence interval 44.7%-57.9%) were eligible to receive PO antimicrobials from the start of treatment or could have been stepped down from IV to PO administration. Conclusions: More than half of patients who received IV therapy were eligible to receive the PO formulation of antimicrobials known to have high oral bioavailability; relative to earlier studies, this proportion has not improved over time. This finding highlights the need for continued vigilance in encouraging the use of PO rather than IV formulations for hospitalized patients.
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.