ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2023
Evaluating a pilot, structured, face-to-face, antimicrobial stewardship, prospective audit-and-feedback program in emergency general surgery service in a community hospital.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Position Paper from the Italian Multidisciplinary Society for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections (SIMPIOS).Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- In-person prospective audit and feedback on an oncology ward: development of an immunocompromised antimicrobial stewardship program.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prospective audit and feedback (PAF) is an established practice in critical care settings but not in surgical populations. We pilot-tested a structured face-to-face PAF program for our acute-care surgery (ACS) service. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study. For the quantitative analysis, the structured PAF period was from August 1, 2017, to April 30, 2019. The ad hoc PAF period was from May 1, 2019, to January 31, 2021. Interrupted time-series segmented negative binomial regression analysis was used to evaluate change in antimicrobial usage measured in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days for all systemic and targeted antimicrobials. Secondary outcomes included Results: In total, 776 ACS patients were included in the structured PAF period and 783 patients were included in the in ad hoc PAF period. No significant changes in level or trend for antimicrobial usage were detected for all and targeted antimicrobials. Similarly, no significant differences were detected for secondary outcomes. The survey response rate was 25% (n = 10). Moreover, 50% agreed that PAF provided them with skills to use antimicrobials more judiciously, and 80% agreed that PAF improved the quality of antimicrobial treatment for their patients. Conclusion: Structured PAF showed clinical outcomes similar to ad hoc PAF. Structured PAF was well received and was perceived as beneficial by surgical staff.
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.