ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2023
Impact of specialty on the self-reported practice of using oral antibiotic therapy for definitive treatment of bloodstream infections.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes in uncomplicated β-hemolytic Streptococcal bloodstream infections transitioned from IV to oral antimicrobial therapy.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Breakpoints Against Enterobacterales: Rationale for Revision by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs), and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience. Objective: To assess practice patterns regarding oral antibiotic use for treatment of bacteremia in infectious diseases clinicians (IDCs, including physicians and pharmacists and trainees in these groups) and non-infectious diseases clinicians (NIDCs). Design: Open-access survey. Participants: Clinicians caring for hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics. Methods: An open-access, web-based survey was distributed to clinicians at a Midwestern academic medical center using e-mail and to clinicians outside the medical center using social media. Respondents answered questions regarding confidence prescribing OAT for BSI in different scenarios. We used χ2 analysis for categorical data evaluated association between responses and demographic groups. Results: Of 282 survey responses, 82.6% of respondents were physicians, 17.4% pharmacists, and IDCs represented 69.2% of all respondents. IDCs were more likely to select routine use of OAT for BSI due to gram-negative anaerobes (84.6% vs 59.8%; P < .0001), Klebsiella spp (84.5% vs 69.0%; P < .009), Proteus spp (83.6% vs 71.3%; P < .027), and other Enterobacterales (79.5% vs 60.9%; P < .004). Our survey results revealed significant differences in selected treatment of Staphylococcus aureus syndromes. Fewer IDCs than NIDCs selected OAT to complete treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) BSI due to gluteal abscess (11.9% vs 25.6%; P = .012) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) BSI due to septic arthritis (13.9% vs 20.9%; P = .219). Conclusions: Practice variation and discordance with evidence for the use of OAT for BSIs exists among IDCs versus NIDCs, highlighting opportunities for education in both clinician groups.
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.