ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
The impact of a non-restrictive Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in the emergency department of a secondary-level Italian hospital.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
- Impact of a persuasive antimicrobial stewardship program on antibiotic use in patients admitted to emergency department for urinary tract infections: a multicentre prospective study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Special Issue: Emergency Medicine: Clinical Advances and Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) Programs in the emergency department (ED) setting is limited. We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess the efficacy of an AMS program in an ED and a short-stay observation unit. The intervention included periodic prospective audits (twice a week), conducted by four infectious disease consultants. Primary outcomes included the difference in the hospital mortality rate, antibiotic consumption, and the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria, before March 2020-February 2021 and after March 2021-February 2022 when the program was implemented. Interrupted time-series analysis was performed to assess the effect of our program. During the 12-month program, we performed 152 audits and evaluated 366 antibiotic therapies out of a total of 853 patients admitted. In the intervention period, we observed a non-statistically significant decrease in total antibiotic consumption, with a change in level of - 31.2 defined daily dose/100 patient-days (PD) (p = 0.71). Likewise, we found no significant variations in the rate of BSI due to MDR Gram-positive (CT - 0.02 events/PD, p = 0.84), MDR Gram-negative bacteria (CT 0.08, p = 0.71), or Candida spp. (CT 0.008, p = 0.86). Conversely, we found a significant decrease in the mortality rate between the pre- and post-intervention periods (- 1.98 deaths/100 PD, CI - 3.9 to - 0.007, p = 0.049). The Antibiotic Stewardship Program in the ED was associated with a significant decrease in the mortality rate. More high-quality studies are needed to determine the most effective ASP strategies in this unique setting.
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.