ReviewThe Korean journal of internal medicine2026
Antimicrobial stewardship programs in sepsis treatment: principles, impact, and future directions.
Review in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis continues to be a serious global health concern with increasing mortality rates owing to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have emerged as critical tools for optimizing antibiotic use and reducing AMR. This review examines the applications of ASPs in sepsis treatment, highlights their role in improving patient outcomes, and addresses the challenges posed by multidrug-resistant organisms. The review begins by exploring the global AMR crisis and its implications for sepsis therapy and then evaluates the Surviving Sepsis Campaign's guidelines and their limitations in the context of growing AMR. The core principles of ASPs in sepsis treatment are also discussed. Data from international and Korean studies indicate that effective ASPs may improve patient outcomes; reduce the length of hospital stay; and reduce the incidence of antibiotic-associated adverse events, healthcare costs, and AMR. However, diagnostic delays, staffing shortages, and inconsistent ASP implementation remain significant barriers. Furthermore, robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of ASPs in various patient populations with sepsis is required. This review concludes with the future directions for integrating rapid diagnostics, individualized treatment planning, and informatics. To ensure responsible antibiotic use in sepsis care in increasing resistance, investment in and engagement with ASPs must be increased.
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.