ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Clinical Impact of a Pharmacist-Driven Prospective Audit with Intervention and Feedback on the Treatment of Patients with Bloodstream Infection.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship: evolving roles in clinical practice.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2026Review
- Practical and clinical significance of the pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2026Review
- Where antibiotic time-outs work: department- and ward-stratified effects of a pharmacist-led anti-MRSA time-out.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Strategies for biofilm inhibition: the role of synthetic drug- and nanotechnology-based agents.Archives of microbiology · 2025Review
- Qualitative changes in clinical records after implementation of pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship program: a text mining analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence for the utility of pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship programs remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of our institutional pharmacist-driven prospective audit with intervention and feedback (PAF) on the treatment of patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). The effect of pharmacist-driven PAF was estimated using an interrupted time series analysis with a quasi-experimental design. The proportion of de-escalation during BSI treatment increased by 44% after the implementation of pharmacist-driven PAF (95% CI: 30−58, p < 0.01). The number of days of therapy decreased by 16 per 100 patient days for carbapenem (95% CI: −28 to −3.5, p = 0.012) and by 15 per 100 patient days for tazobactam/piperacillin (95% CI: −26 to −4.9, p < 0.01). Moreover, the proportion of inappropriate treatment in empirical and definitive therapy was significantly reduced after the implementation of pharmacist-driven PAF. Although 30-day mortality did not change, compliance with evidenced-based bundles in the BSI of Staphylococcus aureus significantly increased (p < 0.01). In conclusion, our pharmacist-driven PAF increased the proportion of de-escalation and decreased the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, as well as the proportion of inappropriate treatment in patients with BSI. This indicates that pharmacist-driven PAF is useful in improving the quality of antimicrobial treatment and reducing broad-spectrum antimicrobial use in the management of patients with BSI.
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.