ArticleInfection2026
Assessing appropriateness of antibiotic therapy: a scoping review of definitions and their clinical implication.
Article in Infection, 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.
- Appropriateness and Abuse of Antipyretics, Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Antibiotics in Children and Adults.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAppropriate antibiotic therapy (AAT) is associated with improved clinical outcomes, yet definitions used to assess AAT vary widely and focus predominantly on in-vitro susceptibility. This contrasts with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles, which emphasize additional factors such as infection focus, dosing, route, and treatment duration. We conducted a scoping review to describe how AAT is defined in clinical research and to examine the association between AAT definitions and patient outcomes.
methodsWe included observational studies published between 2011 and 2021 evaluating the impact of AAT on outcomes in hospitalized adults with bacterial infections. Definitions of empiric and definite AAT were extracted and categorized according to the aspects considered. Association between definition characteristics and reported outcomes were analysed.
resultsAmong 288 included studies, nearly all (98.6%) provided a definition of AAT. Most definitions relied on in-vitro susceptibility alone for empiric (40.7%, 105/258) and definite (31.7%, 13/41) therapy. Other aspects (e.g. dosing, duration, guideline adherence) were used inconsistently and with heterogeneous operationalization. Details on AAT assessment were frequently missing for several aspects, including dosing and route of administration. Empiric AAT was associated with improved outcomes in 62.8% (125/199), particularly for long-term and ICU mortality. However, the associations did not differ consistently by the type or complexity of AAT definition, except when minimum treatment duration was included.
conclusionAAT definitions in current clinical research remain largely susceptibility-based and incompletely aligned with AMS frameworks. More standardized, multidimensional definitions that incorporate clinical, pharmacological, and stewardship criteria are needed to enable comparability across studies and to better understand the true impact of AAT on patient outcomes.
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.