ArticleCureus2025
Addressing Inappropriate Antibiotic Use: Findings From a Point Prevalence Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Clinico-epidemiological determinants for empirical antibiotic prescriptions in suspected urinary tract infection cases attending peripheral hospitals of West Bengal, India- a cross sectional analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Insights Into Pathogen Spectrum and Mixed Microbial Detection in Critically Ill Patients With Pulmonary Infection Using Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Inappropriate antibiotic use is a significant public health concern, contributing to antimicrobial resistance, increased morbidity and mortality, and higher healthcare costs. This study aimed to evaluate antibiotic use in a tertiary hospital and assess the impact of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology consultations on prescribing practices. Methods On the study day, data were collected from all hospitalized adult patients receiving antibiotics. Variables included demographics, hospital ward, antibiotic name, route of administration, indication, dosage, frequency, duration, Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology consultation status, and appropriateness of use. Results Of the 454 adult inpatients, 264 (58.2%) were receiving at least one antibiotic. Among them, 181 (68.6%) were treated empirically or with targeted therapy, while 79 (29.9%) received antibiotics for prophylaxis. The most commonly used antibiotic group was cephalosporins, used in 108 (40.9%) of cases. Respiratory tract infections were the most frequent indication. Antibiotic use was significantly higher in intensive care units compared to surgical and medical wards. Inappropriate antibiotic use was identified in 76 (28.8%) of the 264 patients. The rate of inappropriate use was significantly lower among patients who received consultations from the Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology department. Conversely, inappropriate use was more frequent in surgical wards compared to medical wards and intensive care units. Conclusion Point prevalence surveys provide valuable insights into antibiotic prescribing patterns and support antimicrobial stewardship efforts. In line with findings from other centers, this study revealed that inappropriate antibiotic use was most common in surgical wards and for prophylactic purposes. Targeted interventions are needed to improve surgical prophylaxis practices.
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.