ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Battle of the mnemonics, SPACE versus HECK-Yes! A cross-sectional, nationwide survey of infectious diseases clinicians to evaluate clinical and microbiologic practice patterns for infections caused by Enterobacterales at risk of inducible AmpC production.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Enterobacterales considered at risk of inducible AmpC production are denoted by mnemonics including SPACE and HECK-Yes! However, these mnemonics may fail to account for the variability in AmpC induction potential, which lends to variation in antibiotics chosen for management of associated infections and susceptibility reporting. This study aimed to evaluate clinical and microbiologic practice patterns for the management of infections caused by Enterobacterales at risk of inducible AmpC production. Methods: This cross-sectional survey was developed by a multidisciplinary infectious diseases (ID) team and distributed via ID-related listservs (November-December 2024). The survey assessed institutional demographics, β-lactam of choice, and microbiologic reporting for Enterobacterales with a moderate risk ( Results: Of 94 complete responses, most were from pharmacists (58.5%) and physicians (38.3%) working in adult academic medical centres (39.4%) or community hospitals (37.2%). Cefepime was the preferred β-lactam for invasive (87.2%) and non-invasive (68.1%) infections caused by moderate-risk inducible AmpC producers, while ceftriaxone was preferred for invasive (57.4%) and non-invasive (60.7%) infections caused by low-risk inducible AmpC Inducers. Cefepime (98.8% versus 98.8%), meropenem (85.5% versus 83.1%), piperacillin/tazobactam (72.3% versus 83.1%), and ceftriaxone (67.5% versus 94.0%) were commonly reported antibiotics on non-urinary antibiograms for moderate risk and low risk Enterobacterales, respectively. The beta-lactams reported in institutional antibiograms and microbiology susceptibility reporting were generally similar. Conclusions: This survey highlights differences in practice patterns for management of infections caused by inducible AmpC-producing Enterobacterales. These results emphasize the importance of standardized, evidence-based antimicrobial stewardship approaches and continued clinical investigation to better optimize therapy for infections caused by Enterobacterales capable of inducible AmpC production.
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.