ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2024
Inconsistencies in the Indian Guidelines for the Prescription of Antibiotics for Critically Ill Patients.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 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.
- Utility of multiplex PCR panels for optimum management of lower respiratory Infections Employing FilmArray Pneumonia Plus Testing-results of the UPLIFT study.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently formulated guidelines by Khilnani GC et al. for the prescription of antibiotics for critically ill patients present an extensive compilation of evidence and recommendations. Despite their comprehensive nature, several inconsistencies need addressing. In this commentary, we delve into some of these discrepancies in the order in which they appeared in the guidelines, starting with the misrepresentation of "nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)" and "mini BAL" as different techniques when they are, in fact, identical. Secondly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the year 2013 replaced the older, unreliable ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) definition with ventilator-associated events (VAE). This new VAE definition eliminates subjectivity in pneumonia diagnosis by focusing on objective criteria for ventilator support changes, avoiding dependence on potentially inaccurate chest X-rays and inconsistent medical record keeping. Thus, using the term VAP in the Indian guidelines seems regressive. Furthermore, the recommendation for routine anaerobic coverage in aspiration pneumonia is outdated and unsupported by current evidence. Lastly, while endorsing multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for pathogen identification, the guidelines fail to adequately address its limitations and the risk of overdiagnosis. How to cite this article: Raj N, Nath SS, Singh V, Agarwal J. Inconsistencies in the Indian Guidelines for the Prescription of Antibiotics for Critically Ill Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(10):908-911.
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.