ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2025
Guidelines vs mindlines: a qualitative investigation of how clinicians' beliefs influence the application of rapid molecular diagnostics in intensive care.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine says go, doctor says no: an ecological momentary assessment analysis examining clinicians' perceptions of, and their antibiotic prescribing behaviour when using rapid molecular diagnostic tests in intensive care.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Trial
- Advances in ventilator-associated pneumonia: from pathophysiology to precision management.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of a strategy using multiplex PCR on targeted antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia or hospital-acquired pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation: a randomized, single-blind trial.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of Multiplex PCR Blood-Culture Identification Panels on Clinical Outcomes, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Economic Impact in US Hospitals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Multilevel barriers to antimicrobial stewardship in tertiary care hospitals: A comparative systematic scoping review of high-income versus low-/middle-income countries evidence mapped by study design and healthcare professionals.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Implementation of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic stopping advice in sepsis: A mixed-methods process evaluation in a clinical trial context.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Use of a molecular syndromic panel for the etiological diagnosis of ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia: impact on clinical outcomes and antibiotic use from a multicenter, prospective study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
- A research agenda for burn infection prevention: identifying knowledge gaps and prioritizing future directions.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Review
- Impact of Multidisciplinary Collaboration on Microbiological Specimen Submission and Appropriate Use of Carbapenems: A Pre-Post Cohort Study.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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid molecular diagnostic tests improve antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) by facilitating earlier refinement of antimicrobial therapy. The INHALE trial tested the application of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (Pneumonia Panel) for antibiotic prescribing for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP/VAP) in UK intensive care units (ICUs). We report a behavioral study embedded within the INHALE trial examining clinicians' perceptions of using these tests. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 ICU clinicians after using the Pneumonia Panel to manage suspected HAP/VAP. Thematic analysis identified factors reinforcing perceptions of the necessity to modify antibiotic prescribing in accordance with test results and doubts/concerns about doing so. While most acknowledged the importance of AMS, the test's impact on prescribing decisions was limited. Concerns about potential consequences of undertreatment to the patient and prescriber were often more salient than AMS, sometimes leading to "just-in-case" antibiotic prescriptions. Test results indicating a broad-spectrum antibiotic were unnecessary often failed to influence clinicians to avoid an initial prescription or de-escalate antibiotics early as they considered their use to be necessary to protect the patient and themselves, "erring on the side of caution." Some clinicians described cases where antibiotics would be prescribed for a sick patient regardless of test results because, in their opinion, it fits with the clinical picture-"treating the patient, not the result." Our findings illustrate a tension between prescribing guidelines and clinicians' "mindlines," characterized by previous experiences. This highlights the need for a "technology plus" approach, recognizing the challenges clinicians face when applying technological solutions to patient care.IMPORTANCERapid molecular diagnostic tests for pathogens and resistance genes may improve antibiotic-prescribing decisions and stewardship. However, clinicians' desire to protect their patients with antibiotics often overrides more distal concerns about possible resistance selection, limiting the application of these tests in practice. Findings underscore the challenge of changing prescribing decisions based on technical results or guidelines, highlighting factors such as clinicians' previous experience and "knowledge in practice" as more proximal drivers of these decisions. Implementation strategies for technological solutions to antimicrobial resistance must be "behaviorally intelligent," recognizing the challenges facing clinicians when making "life or death" prescribing decisions.CLINICAL TRIALSThis study is registered with ISRCTN as ISRCTN16483855.
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.