ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2022
A retrospective cohort study of the effect of rapid versus delayed-result procalcitonin testing on antibiotic use at a community hospital.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcalcitonin is a serum biomarker used to distinguish bacterial infection from viral or noninfectious syndromes. Primary literature shows mixed data on use of procalcitonin for de-escalation of antimicrobials. Delays in test results of send-out procalcitonin assays may result in prolonged antimicrobial durations. It is unknown whether availability of rapid-result assays may shorten time to antibiotic de-escalation.
aimThis retrospective, cohort study compared antibiotic durations of treatment between groups with rapid-result versus delayed send-out, procalcitonin test modality. This study was exempt from Ethics Committee Approval, as determined by the Institutional Review Board at the study site.
methodAdult hospitalized patients were included if they had at least one procalcitonin test performed during the study period. The primary outcome compared mean duration of antimicrobial therapy between groups receiving a rapid-result procalcitonin test and a send-out test. Secondary outcomes included incidence of Clostridiodes difficile infection, mention of procalcitonin testing in the electronic medical record in reference to antimicrobial therapy decision making, and presence of comorbidities which affect procalcitonin levels independent of infection.
resultsA total of 350 lab results were analyzed. The duration of antimicrobial treatment between groups was not statistically different with the median duration of treatment in the send-out group being 2.95 days compared to 3.35 in the rapid result group, p = 0.856. Patient comorbidities with potential to lead to a noninfectious elevation or falsely high level of procalcitonin were common.
conclusionUse of a rapid-result procalcitonin assay does not reduce hospital antimicrobial therapy duration as compared with send-out testing.
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.