ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
The effect of carbapenem-resistant versus carbapenem-susceptible
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We sought to compare patient outcomes between carbapenem-resistant Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a positive culture of E. coli, E. cloacae, K. aerogenes, K. oxytoca, and/or K. pneumoniae admitted at UK HealthCare (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019). Based on the type of pathogen on the date of the first culture (index date), patients were included in the CRE (i.e., exposed) group, or the CSE (comparator) group. Exclusion criteria were age < 18 years old, pregnancy, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, necrotizing fasciitis, or cystic fibrosis. We evaluated the impact of CRE vs CSE on a composite outcome of 30-day of all-cause mortality or discharge to hospice using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW). Results: Of 17,839 hospitalized patients, 128 and 6,953 patients were included in the CRE and CSE groups, respectively. Baseline differences existed in sex-assigned-at-birth, admission source, time-to-index culture, and infection type/severity. Most CRE index cultures observed (76%) only exhibited resistance to ertapenem. IPTW-adjusted HR [95% CI] of composite outcome was 0.99 [0.65, 1.51] after 30 days. Follow-up analysis in patients with carbapenem-non-susceptible Conclusions: Risk of composite outcome was not estimated to differ between patients with CRE and CSE in the overall analysis. Although follow-up analysis identified an increased risk, we cannot statistically distinguish this from a null effect.
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.