Trial reportAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
Machine says go, doctor says no: an ecological momentary assessment analysis examining clinicians' perceptions of, and their antibiotic prescribing behaviour when using rapid molecular diagnostic tests in intensive care.
Trial report in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid molecular diagnostics such as the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (the Pneumonia Panel) can improve antibiotic stewardship by supporting doctors to make more targeted antibiotic prescribing decisions faster compared to routine microbiology. However, factors influencing how these test results translate to individual prescribing decisions are poorly understood. The INHALE randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the application of the Pneumonia Panel to manage suspected hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP/VAP) in English intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This behavioural study examines clinicians perceived and actual antibiotic prescribing behaviour, within the INHALE RCT.
methodsClinicians treating ICU patients completed brief questionnaires within 24 h of their prescribing decision for intervention-arm cases (N = 159), exploring factors influencing their decision and perceptions about the test results. Actual prescribing behaviour was extracted from the trial database. A 4-block hierarchical logistic regression identified predictors of prescriptions being consistent with Pneumonia Panel results.
results65% (N = 104) of prescribing decisions were consistent with Pneumonia Panel results. The test result itself was a dominant factor: 88% (N = 98) of decisions were consistent when results were positive (pathogens found). However, only 13% (N = 6) of decisions were consistent when no pathogens were detected. Consequently, clinicians were often reluctant to eschew initial antibiotics or de-escalate early where appropriate, 'erring on the side of caution'. Clinicians perceptions, specifically the speed of results, concurrent antibiotic treatment, the patient having additional confirmed evidence of infection, and believing the patient is unlikely to have a non-respiratory infection predicted prescribing decisions being aligned with test results (all p < .05).
conclusionsFindings have implications for the roll-out of rapid diagnostics in practice, particularly regarding the management of negative results. Implementation strategies need to be behaviourally intelligent, connecting with how clinicians think and behave.
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.