Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36843619›Full record

ReviewDrugs in context2023

Leveraging diagnostic stewardship within antimicrobial stewardship programmes.

Kimberly C Claeys, Melissa D Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs in context, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kimberly C ClaeysUniversity of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Department of Practice Science and Health Outcomes Research, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Melissa D JohnsonDivision of Infectious Diseases & International Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel diagnostic stewardship in infectious disease consists of interventions that modify ordering, processing, and reporting of diagnostic tests to provide the right test for the right patient, prompting the right action. The interventions work upstream and synergistically with traditional antimicrobial stewardship efforts. As diagnostic stewardship continues to gain public attention, it is critical that antimicrobial stewardship programmes not only learn how to effectively leverage diagnostic testing to improve antimicrobial use but also ensure that they are stakeholders and leaders in developing new diagnostic stewardship interventions within their institutions. This review will discuss the need for diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship, the interplay of diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship, evidence of benefit to antimicrobial stewardship programmes, and considerations for successfully engaging in diagnostic stewardship interventions. This article is part of the

Indexed as

antimicrobial stewardshipdiagnostic stewardship

Identifiers

PMID36843619
PMCPMC9949764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.