Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39757287›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025

Artificial intelligence in antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictive performance and diagnostic accuracy.

Flavia Pennisi, Antonio Pinto, Giovanni Emanuele Ricciardi, Carlo Signorelli, Vincenza Gianfredi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Flavia PennisiPhD National Programme in One Health approaches to infectious diseases and life science research, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Antonio PintoFaculty of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni Emanuele RicciardiPhD National Programme in One Health approaches to infectious diseases and life science research, Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Carlo SignorelliFaculty of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Vincenza GianfrediDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Via Pascal 36, 20133, Milan, Italy. vincenza.gianfredi@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3848-981X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance has prompted a need for more effective antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMS). Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools have emerged as potential solutions to enhance decision-making and improve patient outcomes in AMS. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of AI in AMS and to assess its predictive performance and diagnostic accuracy. We conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify studies published up to July 2024. Studies included were observational, cohort, or retrospective, focusing on the application of AI/ML in AMS. The outcomes assessed were the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We calculated the mean pooled effect size (ES) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-AI tool, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Out of 3,458 retrieved articles, 80 studies met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ML models exhibited strong predictive performance and diagnostic accuracy, with the following results: AUC [ES: 72.28 (70.42-74.14)], accuracy [ES: 74.97 (73.35-76.58)], sensitivity [ES: 76.89; (71.90-81.89)], specificity [ES: 73.77; (67.87-79.67)], NPV [ES:79.92 (76.54-83.31)], and PPV [ES: 69.41 (60.19-78.63)] across various AMS settings. AI and ML tools offer promising enhancements due to their strong predictive performance. The integration of AI into AMS could lead to more precise antimicrobial prescribing, reduced antimicrobial resistance, and better resource utilization.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningPredictive Value of TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial stewardshipArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.