ReviewInfection2026
Seven versus fourteen days for resistant bloodstream infections: what do we actually know? A scoping review.
Review in Infection, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecent randomized trials have established that 7 days of antibiotic therapy is noninferior to 14 days for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by susceptible organisms. Whether this conclusion extends to BSI caused by resistant pathogens is unclear. We aimed to map the available evidence on antibiotic duration for resistant BSI, by resistance category, and to identify the gaps that must be addressed before shorter courses can be recommended in this setting.
methodsThis scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A search of PubMed was conducted through February 2026. We included RCTs, meta-analyses, and observational studies comparing antibiotic durations for BSI. Evidence was mapped across five resistance categories: ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), MRSA, VRE, and MDR non-fermenting Gram-negatives.
resultsWe included 28 studies: 6 RCTs (5,182 patients, including the BALANCE pilot), 6 independent meta-analyses, 15 observational studies, and 1 post-hoc subgroup analysis of the BALANCE trial. All four definitive RCTs and all six meta-analyses confirmed noninferiority of 7-day therapy for susceptible BSI; none performed a resistance-stratified subgroup analysis for multidrug-resistant organisms (MROs). The only MRO-specific RCT (OPTIMISE, 2024) was halted after enrolling 103 of 382 planned patients. Observational data-including Le Berre et al. (379 ESBL-E BSI in ICU) (Le Berre et al. in Antibiotics (Basel) 14, 2025), Soto et al. (183 CRE BSI) (Soto et al. in Clin Infect Dis 78:27-30, 2024), Bahrs et al. (219 VRE BSI) (Bahrs et al. in Clin Microbiol Infect 29:200-207, 2023), and Gajdos et al. (EUROBACT-2, 550 hospital-acquired BSI) (Gajdos et al. in Intensive Care Med 51:518-528, 2025)-were consistent with no excess harm from shorter courses but were individually underpowered for noninferiority. For each of the five pre-specified resistance categories, evidence was either absent, insufficient for subgroup analysis, or derived from underpowered observational studies.
conclusionCurrent RCT and meta-analytic evidence consistently supports the noninferiority of 7-day therapy for uncomplicated BSI caused by susceptible organisms. For resistant BSI, preliminary observational data are reassuring but far from definitive. Resistance-stratified trials are needed; the BALANCE + platform and SHORTEN-2 trial offer the most promising paths forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42201516What 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.