ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Microbiological findings and antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Process evaluation of an effective Antimicrobial Stewardship intervention in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational and regional guidelines are regularly updated to ensure the correct diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia while minimizing unnecessary antibiotic use. However, recent microbiological studies have raised concerns about the recommendations in Danish guidelines. This study aimed to describe the aetiology, empirical antibiotic treatment, and adherence to guidelines in the management of hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all adults hospitalised with CAP at the Emergency Department of Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, over a one-year period from November 2021 to October 2022. Hospital records were reviewed, and the microbiological data and the antibiotic therapy were analysed.
resultsA total of 366 patients were included in the study. The most frequently identified pathogen was Haemophilus influenzae (25%), followed by influenza A (22%), Staphylococcus aureus (9%), respiratory syncytial virus (9%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (8%). H. influenzae was the dominant bacterial pathogen in both patients with COPD and without COPD. S. aureus was among the most commonly detected pathogens in patients with a CURB-65 score of 3–5 (22%). Regarding antibiotic treatment, 41% of the patients did not receive the recommended therapy. Non-adherence to the guidelines was primarily driven by the overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics. At admission time, the most commonly prescribed empirical antibiotics were amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (33%), piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy (23%) and penicillin monotherapy (21%), respectively.
conclusionOur study found that H. influenzae was the most frequently detected bacterial pathogen identified in both patients with and without COPD hospitalised with CAP. These findings highlight the need to reconsider the empirical treatment recommendations in the Danish guidelines. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was the most commonly prescribed empirical antibiotic. However, a substantial proportion of patients did not receive guideline-adherent treatment. Broad-spectrum antibiotic overuse was the main issue.
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.