ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Determining the Use and Reasons for Non-De-Escalation of Empiric Carbapenem Therapy in a Private Hospital in South Africa.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the rising incidence of ESBL-producing bacterial infections, the use of carbapenems has increased over recent decades. Carbapenems are part of the group of last-resort antimicrobials and are used widely as empirical therapy, which is contributing to the growing rate of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). De-escalation has been proven to be a successful tool in antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) in minimising the occurrence of AMR and decreasing the use of antimicrobials. The purpose of the study was to find the reasons why prescribers do not de-escalate from empiric carbapenem therapy.
methodsThis retrospective quantitative study was conducted in a private hospital in South Africa. The infection markers and cultures of these patients were considered.
resultsDe-escalation was practiced in 17% of the patients. Empiric carbapenem therapy was started in 11.2% of patients and the most prescribed carbapenem was ertapenem (62.4%). Cultures were available in 71.1% of the study population. De-escalation was not performed in 83% of patients, mostly since their infection markers decreased with carbapenem therapy (45.9%) or because of culture unavailability (28.9%).
conclusionThe study came to the conclusion that prescribers do not want to de-escalate once their patients are improving on current treatment or if there are no cultures available.
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.