Observational studyInfection2025
Targeting antimicrobial restriction: outcomes of pharmacist-led stewardship interventions at the university hospital Salzburg.
Observational study in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meeting the future at the Munich conference ESCMID-Global 2026.Infection · 2026Article
- ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAntimicrobial overuse and misuse remain critical challenges. This study examined pharmacist-led post-prescription interventions targeting restricted antimicrobials in a university hospital, identifying underlying drug-related problems (DRPs), their clinical relevance, economic impact and characteristic patterns of inappropriate use.
methodsA retrospective observational analysis (January- December 2022) was conducted at the Salzburg State Hospitals using routine data of pharmacist-led interventions on restricted antimicrobials. DRPs and intervention types were categorized using validated criteria. Clinical relevance was independently assessed through an external survey, and interrater reliability was determined to ensure consistency in classification and evaluation. Potential cost savings and acceptance rates of the pharmaceutical interventions were assessed.
resultsA total of 3897 restricted antimicrobial prescriptions were analyzed, with 11.7% (456) showing at least one DRP in 366 patients. The majority of DRPs (80.2%) exhibited marked clinical relevance, mainly due to non-conformance with guidelines (27.4%), unclear indication (27.2%), and the need for patient or drug monitoring (12.5%). Broad-spectrum agents linezolid (25.0%), meropenem (24.1%), ciprofloxacin (15.8%), and piperacillin-tazobactam (8.8%) accounted for nearly 74% of all DRPs. DRP-related interventions aimed at optimizing PK/PD parameters (30.6%), treatment discontinuation (28.1%), and de-escalation (17.9%). The acceptance rate of interventions was high (82.7%). A cost reduction potential was identified in 89.7% of interventions, saving €180,420 in avoided drug expenses.
conclusionPharmacist-led post-prescription interventions within an established AMS program effectively identified clinically relevant misuse of restricted antimicrobials. Targeted actions on key agents enable high-impact optimization, supported by strong acceptance and cost-saving potential - thereby enhancing stewardship efforts, guiding improvements in diagnostics, and prescribing behavior.
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.