ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
Fixed versus individualized treatment for five common bacterial infectious syndromes: a survey of the perspectives and practices of clinicians.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditionally, bacterial infections have been treated with fixed-duration antibiotic courses; however, some have advocated for individualized durations. It is not known which approach currently predominates. Methods: We conducted a multinational clinical practice survey asking prescribers their approach to treating skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), pyelonephritis, cholangitis and bloodstream infection (BSI) of an unknown source. The primary outcome was self-reported treatment approach as being fully fixed duration, fixed minimum, fixed maximum, fixed minimum and maximum, or fully individualized durations. Secondary questions explored factors influencing duration of therapy. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to examine predictors of use of fully fixed durations. Results: Among 221 respondents, 170 (76.9%) completed the full survey; infectious diseases physicians accounted for 60.6%. Use of a fully fixed duration was least common for SSTI (8.5%) and more common for CAP (28.3%), BSI (29.9%), cholangitis (35.7%) and pyelonephritis (36.3%). Fully individualized therapy, with no fixed minimum or maximum, was used by only a minority: CAP (4.9%), pyelonephritis (5.0%), cholangitis (9.9%), BSI (13.6%) and SSTI (19.5%). In multivariable analyses, a fully fixed duration approach was more common among Canadian respondents [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.76 (95% CI 1.12-2.76)] and for CAP (aOR 4.25, 95% CI 2.53-7.13), cholangitis (aOR 6.01, 95% CI 3.49-10.36), pyelonephritis (aOR 6.08, 95% CI 3.56-10.39) and BSI (aOR 4.49, 95% CI 2.50-8.09) compared with SSTI. Conclusions: There is extensive practice heterogeneity in fixed versus individualized treatment; clinical trials would be helpful to compare these approaches.
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.