ArticlePloS one2023
Reduction strategies for inpatient oral third-generation cephalosporins at a cancer center: An interrupted time-series analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis to identify behavioural content and active ingredients of antimicrobial stewardship education and training interventions in hospital-based care settings.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Pooled it
- Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli infections in Japanese patients with cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral third-generation cephalosporins (3GCs) are not recommended for use owing to their low bioavailability and the risk of emergence of resistant microorganisms with overuse. A standardized and effective method for reducing their use is lacking. Here, in a 60-month, single-institution, interrupted time-series analysis, which was retrospectively conducted between April 1, 2017, and March 31, 2022, we evaluated the effectiveness of a four-phase intervention to reduce the use of 3GCs in patients at a cancer center: Phase 1 (pre-intervention), Phase 2 (review of clinical pathways), Phase 3 (establishment of infectious disease consultation service and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship program), and Phase 4 (educational lecture and pop-up displays for oral antimicrobials at the time of ordering). Although no significant changes were observed in Phases 3 and 4, the first intervention resulted in a significant decrease in the trend and level of days of therapy (DOT) for 3GCs. The level for cephalexin DOT and the trend for sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim DOT increased in Phase 4, and the trend for amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate DOT increased in Phase 3. Macrolide DOT showed a decreasing trend in Phases 2 and 4 and decreasing and increased levels in Phases 3 and 4, respectively; no change was observed for quinolones. Actual and adjusted purchase costs of 3GCs decreased significantly during all study periods, while those for oral antimicrobials decreased in Phase 2, and actual purchase costs increased in Phases 3 and 4. No significant reduction in resistant organisms, length of hospital stay, or mortality was observed. This is the first study on the effects of oral 3GC reduction strategies in patients with cancer. We conclude that even facilities that substantially use antimicrobials can efficiently reduce the use of 3GCs.
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.