ArticleScientific reports2026
Antimicrobial use at the end of life: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Trends in Hospitalization, Case Fatality, and Mortality for Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Portugal over 20 Years.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibiotic resistance poses a global threat. Antibiotics are administered to 80-90% of terminally ill patients but evidence of their effectiveness in improving survival or symptom relief at the end of life (EOL) is scarce. To determine the proportion of deceased patients that continue antibiotic treatment after documented EOL discussion and the decision to prioritise symptom relief over active treatment. As secondary aims to compare the groups with and without antibiotics after EOL discussion in terms of differences in demographics, type of infection, mean survival time after EOL discussion and if fluid therapy followed the same trend as antibiotic use. This was a retrospective cohort study including 100 patients aged 18 years or older who died with continued or discontinued antibiotics after EOL discussion, at Blekinge Hospital from January 2022 to February 2024. Patients were excluded if they received curative intended treatment until death, did not receive antibiotics during hospitalisation, or the antibiotic treatment was ended before EOL discussion. Medical record data were compared, using chi-2- , Fisher's exact- and t-tests, between patients who continued antibiotics or not after EOL discussion, in terms of demographics, focus of infection and survival time after EOL discussion. Ethical approval was granted by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority on 2023-12-14 (Dnr: 2023-07647-01). A total 36% (36/100) patients continued antibiotic treatment after EOL discussion. The most prescribed antibiotics were piperacillin-tazobactam (37%) and cefotaxime (32%) and the most common site of infection was pneumonia (45%). There was no statistical significance in survival time after EOL discussion between patients with antibiotics after EOL discussion or not (mean 2.7 days (range 0-11); IQR 1-3 vs 1.9 days (range 0-10); IQR 0.75-3; 95% CI 0.46-1.05; p = 0.082). Patients who continued antibiotics were also significantly more likely to continue with intravenous fluids (11/36 (31%) vs 3/64 (5%); between-group difference of 26%; 95% CI 0.10-0.42; p = 0.001). After EOL discussion more than one-third of inpatients continued antibiotics despite a shift to symptom relief, reflecting ongoing challenges in antimicrobial stewardship in palliative care.
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.