ArticleJAMA network open2025
Metrics Selection and Risk Adjustment Methods to Benchmark Inpatient Antibiotic Use.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. 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.
- DASC-LOT Framework and S3 Metric: A Novel Evaluation and Benchmarking Method to Assess Initiation, Duration, and Spectrum of Antimicrobial Usage at Inpatient Hospital Settings.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Factors associated with antimicrobial drug prescription in inpatient dogs and cats at a veterinary teaching hospital.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Spectrum Coverage Score-based Antimicrobial Consumption in Acute Care Hospitals Over Eight Years: A Multicentric Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers a standardized antimicrobial administration ratio (SAAR) as an evaluation metric for inpatient antibiotic use through rankings and peer comparisons (ie, benchmarking). However, the SAAR model only accounts for facility- and unit-level factors without considering the hierarchical nature of the health care data, and it does not directly reflect patient-level factors or stewardship efforts to avoid overly broad-spectrum therapy. Objective: To examine the use of antimicrobial use risk adjustment methods and choice of basic metrics (eg, days of therapy [DOT] and days of antimicrobial spectrum coverage [DASC], which do not and do consider antimicrobial spectrum, respectively) in hospital benchmarking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 117 acute care hospitals within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. All patients admitted between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly antibiotic use was measured with 2 basic metrics and risk adjustment models created using baseline data for 2021 to 2022. Hospitals were benchmarked for 2023 use via 3 methods: (1) unadjusted comparison, (2) risk adjustment with hospital- and unit-level factors with single-level negative binomial regression models (method 1, similar in approach to the SAAR), and (3) risk adjustment with hospital-, unit-, and patient-level factors with hierarchical zero-inflated negative binomial regression models (method 2). Results: This study included 736 810 patients (median age, 70 [IQR, 61-76] years; 94.7% male). There was wide variability in unadjusted antibiotic use among hospitals (median, 477 [IQR, 420-523] DOT per 1000 days present [DP]; and median, 3115 [IQR, 2739-3602] DASC per 1000 DP). Risk adjustments with methods 1 and 2 resulted in moderate ranking changes, but there were only weak correlations between benchmarking results by the 2 methods (τB = 0.43 for DOT and 0.44 for DASC). The choice of basic metrics with or without consideration of antimicrobial spectrums (DOT vs DASC) had a modest correlation after risk adjustment (τB = 0.84). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of the nationwide VHA system, there were substantial differences in risk-adjusted benchmarking results between models with only hospital- and unit-level factors and models with hospital-, unit-, and patient-level factors. Future studies should evaluate whether these models with higher content validity also have better construct validity and can inform hospitals and stewardship programs about their objective performance compared with other programs.
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.