ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2025
Practice and attitudes of infection control staff towards diagnostic stewardship measures.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In recent years, diagnostic stewardship has gained importance worldwide as part of antibiotic stewardship and infection control programs. However, the specific involvement of infection control (IC) teams in this area has not been studied. Method: A volunteer survey of participants at the 2024 Freiburg Conference on Infection Prevention and Therapy was conducted to assess attitudes and practices regarding diagnostic stewardship. Results: The majority of the 182 participants worked in German hospitals with established IC-committees (91.2%), antibiotic stewardship teams (43.4%), and laboratory commissions (24.7%).For sepsis diagnosis, at least two pairs of blood cultures are usually taken, which is in line with the guidelines; 14.3% use the "six-pack" rule (three pairs), and 28.6% take all cultures from one puncture site. For many clinical tests -except of stool tests and C-reactive protein - less than 50% rated their use as "appropriate", indicating a need for improvement. Interleukin 6 and beta-D-glucan are rarely used.Strategies such as reflex tests and cascade reporting are only used occasionally and are viewed with scepticism in some cases. Screening for methicillin resistant Discussion: Subjective assessments and a heterogeneous participant structure limit the survey, and subgroup analyses are not possible due to the small number of cases. However, the results show chances for education and integration of IC teams in diagnostic stewardship programs.
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.