ArticleJAMA network open2022
Sustaining Antimicrobial Stewardship in a High-Antibiotic Resistance Setting.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Using implementation science to bridge the gaps between political commitment and action in antimicrobial resistance governance under the one health approach in the WHO Southeast Asia and Western Pacific regions.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Optimal antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Trends in carbapenem antibiotics utilization, costs, and market dynamics in Medicaid: a retrospective analysis from 1991 to 2023.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Antibiotic utilisation and resistance over the first decade of nationally funded antimicrobial stewardship programmes in Singapore acute-care hospitals.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Observational
- Lack of pathogen identification influencing antibiotic de-escalation in hospital-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: There is a lack of studies comparing the intended and unintended consequences of prospective review and feedback (PRF) with computerized decision support systems (CDSS), especially in the longer term in antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To examine the outcomes associated with the sequential implementation of PRF and CDSS and changes to these interventions with long-term use of antibiotics for and incidence of multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and other unintended outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis of data from January 2007 to December 2018. Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of patients admitted at a large university teaching hospital with high rates of antibiotic resistance in Singapore. Data were analyzed from June 2019 to June 2020. Exposures: PRF of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems (intervention 1, April 2009), with the addition of hospital-wide CDSS (intervention 2, April 2011), and lifting of CDSS for half of the hospital wards for 6 months (intervention 3, March 2017). Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly antimicrobial use was measured in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 patient-days. The monthly incidence of MDROs was calculated as number of clinical isolates detected per 1000 inpatient-days over a 6-month period. Unintended outcomes examined included in-hospital mortality and age-adjusted length of stay (LOS). Results: The number of inpatients increased from 56 263 in 2007 to 63 572 in 2018. During the same period, the mean monthly patient days increased from 33 929 in 2007 to 45 603 in 2018, and the proportion of patients older than 65 years increased from 45.5% in 2007 to 56.6% in 2018. After intervention 1, there were 0.33 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.48) more DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -11.05 (95% CI, -15.55 to -6.55) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month for other broad-spectrum antibiotics. After intervention 2, there were -0.22 (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.10) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems and -2.10 (95% CI, -3.13 to -1.07) fewer DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month for other broad-spectrum antibiotics. After intervention 3, use of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenem increased by 0.28 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.55) DDDs per 1000 patient-days per month. After intervention 2, incidence of Clostridioides difficile decreased (estimate, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.03 to -0.01] cases per 1000 patient-days per month). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, concurrent PRF and CDSS were associated with limiting the use of piperacillin-tazobactam and carbapenems while reducing use of other antibiotics.
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.