ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Evaluation of antimicrobial orders with expanded indication for use.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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
Objective: To evaluate the impact of requiring infectious source selection on systemic antimicrobial orders for stewardship tracking. Design and Setting: Multicenter, health system quality improvement project across 17 hospitals and 21 emergency departments. Methods: All inpatient and ED antimicrobial orders with an indication between September 1 and September 30, 2024 were analyzed. Primary outcome: Prevalence of selected infectious sources. Secondary outcomes: indication frequency, free-text use, and concordance between selected and documented sources in 500 random orders. Results: Among 57,118 orders, empiric indication was most common (71%). Top sources: respiratory (23%), urinary/renal (19%), skin/soft tissue (16%). Concordance was 95%. Free-text entries (2.6%) often matched existing options; dental/oral emerged as a new category. Conclusion: Infectious source selection was evaluated and supports future targeted stewardship interventions.
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.