ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
A Comparison of Different Strategies for Optimizing the Selection of Empiric Antibiotic Therapy for Pneumonia Caused by Gram-Negative Bacteria in Intensive Care Units: Unit-Specific Combination Antibiograms Versus Patient-Specific Risk Factors.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stratified cumulative antibiograms and antimicrobial resistance trends among hospitalized patients in a Chinese tertiary hospital: a 7-year retrospective study.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- The Role of Stratified Cumulative Antibiograms in the (Choice of Appropriate Antibiotics in Urinary Tract Infection) Management of Urinary Tract Infections.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Microbiological Etiology and Detection of Drug-Resistant Bacteria in Pneumonia in Patients with Organophosphate Poisoning in the Intensive Care Unit.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines suggest dual antipseudomonal therapy for empiric treatment of pneumonia caused by gram-negative bacteria in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, consideration of local susceptibility data and patient-specific risk factors for resistance is recommended for selecting optimal empiric regimens. However, data assessing how to best do this are lacking, and it is unclear whether a local susceptibility data-based or a patient-specific risk factor-based approach will better drive appropriate empiric treatment. This study aims to compare these 2 strategies. Methods: This retrospective study was divided into 2 periods. In period I, gram-negative respiratory cultures from ICU patients were used to develop unit-specific combination antibiograms, and individual patient charts were reviewed to assess the impact of risk factors on antimicrobial susceptibility to develop a risk factor-based treatment algorithm. Optimal empiric regimens based on these 2 strategies were then defined. In period II, these regimens were hypothetically applied to patients to compare rates of appropriate empiric therapy and overuse by the 2 methods. Results: Risk factor-based regimens had a higher appropriateness rate compared to regimens derived from antibiograms (89.9% vs 83.7%). Additionally, applying antibiogram-based regimens resulted in a higher prevalence of antibiotic overuse than a patient-specific risk factor-based approach (69.8% vs 40.3%), with excess overuse driven by a higher frequency of unnecessary use of combination therapy. Conclusions: Both strategies provided high rates of appropriateness in empiric antibiotic selection. However, the patient-specific risk factor-based approach demonstrated a higher rate of appropriate therapy and offered advantages in reducing rates of unnecessary combination therapy.
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.