ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2022
Antimicrobial stewardship for sepsis in the intensive care unit: Survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians.
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-reported knowledge attitude and practice of healthcare professionals in the management of infection and antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Infection Prevention and Control Strategies According to the Type of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria andAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the attitudes of infectious diseases (ID) and critical care physicians toward antimicrobial stewardship in the intensive care unit (ICU).
designAnonymous, cross-sectional, web-based surveys.
settingSurveys were completed in March-November 2017, and data were analyzed from December 2017 to December 2019.
participantsID and critical care fellows and attending physicians.
methodsWe included 10 demographic and 17 newly developed, 5-point, Likert-scaled items measuring attitudes toward ICU antimicrobial stewardship and transdisciplinary collaboration. Exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) was used for data reduction. Multivariable linear regression models explored demographic and attitudinal variables.
resultsOf 372 respondents, 315 physicians had complete data (72% attendings, 28% fellows; 63% ID specialists, and 37% critical care specialists). Our PCA yielded a 3-item factor measuring which specialty should assume ICU antimicrobial stewardship (Cronbach standardized α = 0.71; higher scores indicate that ID physicians should be stewards), and a 4-item factor measuring value of ICU transdisciplinary collaborations (α = 0.62; higher scores indicate higher value). In regression models, ID physicians (vs critical care physicians), placed higher value on ICU collaborations and expressed discomfort with uncertain diagnoses. These factors were independently associated with stronger agreement that ID physicians should be ICU antimicrobial stewards. The following factors were independently associated with higher value of transdisciplinary collaboration: female sex, less discomfort with uncertain diagnoses, and stronger agreement with ID physicians as ICU antimicrobial stewards.
conclusionsID and critical care physicians endorsed their own group for antimicrobial stewardship, but both groups placed high value on ICU transdisciplinary collaborations. Physicians who were more uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses reported preference for ID physicians to coordinate ICU antimicrobial stewardship; however, physicians who were less uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses placed greater value on ICU collaborations.
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.