ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2025
Impact of a persuasive antimicrobial stewardship program on antibiotic use in patients admitted to emergency department for urinary tract infections: a multicentre prospective study.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe spread of antibiotic resistance makes it necessary to implement Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) Programs; the aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of an AMS program in the management of urinary tract infection (UTI) in emergency setting.
methodsA prospective multicentre study was conducted enrolling all adult patients admitted to one of the 8 emergency departments participating in the study with a diagnosis of UTI from February 2023 to July 2024. Only one of the eight centers received a persuasive AMS program. The primary outcome evaluated was the prevalence of empirical antimicrobial prescription belonging to Access class according to WHO classification in AMS and non-AMS ED; secondary outcomes included the prevalence of etiologial diagnosis, the clinical response and seven-day and 30-day mortality rates.
resultsDuring the study period, 657 patients were enrolled, 135 in the AMS and 522 in the non-AMS group, with a median age of 71 years (IQR 58-79). Patients in the AMS group had a more severe disease with a higher rate of sepsis or septic shock at admission (p < 0.001). In the AMS group, the percentage of patients with a microbiological diagnosis was higher (67% vs 43.1% p < 0.001); regarding empirical antibiotic therapy, drugs of the Access class were more frequently prescribed as empirical treatment in the AMS group (48.3 vs 37%, p = 0.04). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of 7- and 30-day mortality and 7-day clinical response between the 2 groups, despite the higher severity of patients in the AMS group.
conclusionsIn the centre where an AMS program was conducted, an increase in the number of positive urine cultures (67% vs 43.1%) has been observed, and a higher rate of prescriptions for Access class antibiotics. Further prospective data are needed to evaluate the impact of AMS intervention on antimicrobial prescribing in emergency setting.
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.