ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Antimicrobial stewardship strategy implementation and impact in acute care spinal cord injury and disorder units.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextAntimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) are crucial to optimizing antibiotic use. ASPs are implemented in the Veterans Health Administration (VAs), but they do not target the needs of populations at high risk for resistant infections, such as spinal cord injury and disorder (SCI/D).
objectiveThe goal of this study was to assess key ASP leader and SCI/D clinicians' perceived level of implementation and impact of 33 Antimicrobial Stewardship (AS) strategies.
methodSCI/D clinicians and ASP leaders across 24 VA facilities with SCI/D units were surveyed. Participants rated their perceived level of impact ("high", "mild", "low") and perceived level of implementation ("not", "partially", "fully") for 33 AS strategies in SCI/D units in VAs. Strategies were grouped into core elements which they support. We conducted a Fisher's exact test to assess differences between respondent perceptions based on role (SCI/D clinicians versus ASP leaders).
resultsAS strategy implementation varied across VA facilities. Of the AS strategies, pre-authorization was perceived to be highly impactful (78%) and fully implemented (82%). SCI/D clinicians and ASP leaders rated AS strategies differently such that SCI/D clinicians were less aware of implementation of AS strategies related to reporting requirements; further, SCI/D clinicians rated strategies which guide treatment duration and which limit
conclusionImplementation practices varied across VA facilities. Future work should implement highly impactful AS strategies according to facility and unit needs.
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.