ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
One Hundred Explicit Definitions of Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions of Antibiotics in Hospitalized Older Patients: The Results of an Expert Consensus Study.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn geriatrics, explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) are useful for optimizing drug use.
objectiveTo produce an expert consensus on explicit definitions of antibiotic-PIPs for hospitalized older patients.
methodsWe conducted a Delphi survey involving French experts on antibiotic stewardship in hospital settings. During the survey's rounds, the experts gave their opinion on each explicit definition, and could suggest new definitions. Definitions with a 1-to-9 Likert score of between 7 and 9 from at least 75% of the participants were adopted. The results were discussed during consensus meetings after each round.
resultsOf the 155 invited experts, 128 (82.6%) participated in the whole survey: 59 (46%) infectious diseases specialists, 45 (35%) geriatricians, and 24 (19%) other specialists. In Round 1, 65 explicit definitions were adopted and 21 new definitions were suggested. In Round 2, 35 other explicit definitions were adopted. The results were validated during consensus meetings (with 44 participants after Round 1, and 54 after Round 2).
conclusionsThe present study is the first to have provided a list of explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for hospitalized older patients. It might help to disseminate key messages to prescribers and reduce inappropriate prescriptions of antibiotics.
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.