ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023
Clinical impact of multidisciplinary carbapenem stewardship interventions: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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.
- Carbapenem de-escalation as an antimicrobial stewardship strategy: a narrative review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- The impact of hospital-specific guidelines on carbapenem use and patient outcomes in a setting for high endemicity with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program aims to optimise antimicrobial utilisation and curb antimicrobial resistance. We investigated the clinical impact of AMS among patients with carbapenem in medical wards of a tertiary hospital.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on hospitalised adult patients treated with carbapenem and reviewed by a multidisciplinary AMS team. We compared the clinical outcomes of accepted (n = 103) and not-accepted AMS intervention cases (n = 37). The outcomes evaluated include trends of total white blood cells (TWBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), body temperature at day-7, and clinical status at day-30 post-AMS intervention.
resultsThe interventions included discontinuation (50%), de-escalation (47.9%) and escalation (2.1%) of antibiotics, where the acceptance rate was 67.1%, 80.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Overall, we found no significant difference in clinical outcomes between accepted and not-accepted AMS interventions at day-7 and day-30 post-interventions. On day-7, 62.0% of patients in the accepted group showed decreased or normalised TWBC and CRP levels compared to 47.4% of the not-accepted group (p = 0.271). The mortality at day-30 (32% versus 35%, p = 0.73), discharge rate (53.4% versus 45.9%, p = 0.437), and median length of hospital stay (36.0 versus 30.0 days, p = 0.526) between the groups were comparable. The predictors of 30-day mortality in the study subjects were Charlson Comorbidity Index > 3 (OR: 2.84, 95% CI 1.28-6.29, p = 0.010) and being febrile at day-7 (OR: 4.58, 95% CI 1.83-11.5, p = 0.001).
conclusionAMS interventions do not result in significant adverse clinical impact and mortality risk.
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.