ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2025
Effectiveness of an antimicrobial stewardship program using an automated antimicrobial surveillance system based on indication for antimicrobial administration.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional antimicrobial surveillance measures usage in days of therapy (DOT). However, assessments using DOT alone often ignore indication-specific details, which limits the identification of targets for antimicrobial stewardship (AS) interventions. Therefore, we have developed an automated surveillance system (the Antimicrobial and Patient Background Surveillance System [APBSS]) in order to analyze antimicrobial use based on indications, and evaluated the short-term effectiveness of an AS program using APBSS surveillance data, as an initial evaluation of the newly developed system.
methodsUsing an interrupted time series design, we calculated the carbapenem DOT per 100 patient days as the primary outcome by comparing the pre-intervention (October 2022 to September 2024) and post-intervention (October 2024 to September 2025) periods. During the intervention, the AS team presented the APBSS surveillance data, including indication-specific antimicrobial use, patient characteristics, annual trends at our hospital, and multicenter comparisons. The antipseudomonal agent DOT was a secondary outcome.
resultsPatient characteristics did not differ substantially between the periods. APBSS surveillance data identified key issues, including high carbapenem use in specific infections (e.g. Gram-negative rod bacteremia), which occurred despite the lower proportion of patients with hematological malignancies compared with other hospitals. However, the intervention significantly reduced carbapenem DOT levels (level change: −0.69/100 patient days, p = 0.017). The antipseudomonal agent DOT also significantly decreased (level change: −1.7/100 patient days, p = 0.004).
conclusionsThe AS program that used APBSS surveillance data improved the use of carbapenems and antipseudomonal agents in the short-term. Thus, our initial evaluation has suggested that AS programs that use APBSS surveillance data can contribute to the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents.
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.