ArticleCroatian medical journal2023
Outpatient treatment of pneumonia in a setting with and without an infectious disease doctor.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the outpatient treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP) by infectious disease doctors (IDDs) and doctors of other specialties (nIDDs).
methodsWe retrospectively identified 600 outpatients with CAP: 300 treated by IDDs and 300 by nIDDs in two tertiary hospitals during 2019. The two groups were compared in terms of adherence to guidelines, antibiotic group prescription, frequency of combined treatment, and treatment duration.
resultsIDDs prescribed significantly more first-line treatment (P<0.001) and alternative treatment (P=0.008). NIDDs prescribed more reasonable (P<0.001) and unnecessary (P=0.002) second-line treatment, and inadequate treatment (P=0.004). IDDs significantly more frequently prescribed amoxicillin (P<0.001) for typical and doxycycline (P=0.045) for atypical CAP, while nIDDs significantly more frequently prescribed amoxicillin-clavulanate (P<0.001) for typical and fluoroquinolones for both typical (P<0.001) and atypical (P<0.001) CAP. No significant differences were found in the frequency of combined treatment, which exceeded 50% in both groups, or in treatment duration.
conclusionsOutpatient treatment of CAP in the absence of IDDs meant more broad-spectrum antibiotic prescription and more disregard for national guidelines. Our results highlight the need for antibiotic stewardship, especially in settings with no IDDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36864818PMC10028564W4323036140What 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.