ArticlePloS one2022
Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial to assess 7 versus 14-days of treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections (SHORTEN-2 trial).
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05210439 (Efficacy and Safety of 7 Versus 14 Days of Antibiotic Treatment for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Bacteremia), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Efficacy and Safety of 7 Versus 14 Days of Antibiotic Treatment for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Bacteremia: a Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial (SHORTEN-2) With a DOOR / RADAR Analysis
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seven vs Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Noninferiority Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Antibiotic treatment for 7 days versus 14 days in patients with uncomplicated bloodstream infections: a Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Seven versus fourteen days for resistant bloodstream infections: what do we actually know? A scoping review.Infection · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch priorities in Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) have rapidly evolved in the last decade. The need for a more efficient use of antimicrobials have fueled plenty of studies to define the optimal duration for antibiotic treatments, and yet, there still are large areas of uncertainty in common clinical scenarios. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been pointed as a priority for clinical research, but it has been unattended by most randomized trials tackling the effectiveness of short treatments. The study protocol of the SHORTEN-2 trial is presented as a practical example of new ways to approach common obstacles for clinical research in AMS.
objectiveTo determine whether a 7-day course of antibiotics is superior to 14-day schemes for treating bloodstream infections by P. aeruginosa (BSI-PA).
methodsA superiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial will be performed across 30 Spanish hospitals. Adult patients with uncomplicated BSI-PA will be randomized to receive a 7 versus 14-day course of any active antibiotic. The primary endpoint will be the probability for the 7-day group of achieving better outcomes than the control group, assessing altogether clinical effectiveness, severe adverse events, and antibiotic exposure through a DOOR/RADAR analysis. Main secondary endpoints include treatment failure, BSI-PA relapses, and mortality. A superiority design was set for the primary endpoint and non-inferiority for treatment failure, resulting in a sample size of 304 patients.
conclusionsSHORTEN-2 trial aligns with some of the priorities for clinical research in AMS. The implementation of several methodological innovations allowed overcoming common obstacles, like feasible sample sizes or measuring the clinical impact and unintended effects.
trial registrationEudraCt: 2021-003847-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05210439.
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.