ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Bridging the gap in bloodstream infection management: a survey among non-infectious disease physicians.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Despite emerging evidence supporting optimal management, substantial variability persists among non-infectious disease (ID) physicians. This study assessed non-ID physicians' knowledge and attitudes in BSI management, identifying critical gaps to inform antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions. Methods: In December 2024, we conducted an online questionnaire among non-ID physicians at the Provincial Health Care Agency, Trento, Italy. An 18-item questionnaire, developed by a multidisciplinary group, evaluated key domains of BSI management, including diagnostic strategies, antibiotic selection, treatment duration, follow-up management, and ID consultation practices. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse response patterns. Results: Of 128 respondents, 99% expressed willingness to follow internal BSI guidelines, and 94% supported multidisciplinary feedback. Overall, 50.8% correctly identified the optimal 14-day antibiotic duration for uncomplicated Conclusions: These findings highlights substantial knowledge gaps among non-ID physicians regarding bacterial BSI management. These findings support targeted AMS interventions under the Bacteraemia Evidence-based Active Treatment (BEAT) initiative to improve clinical outcomes.
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.