ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Efficacy of a transition to oral antimicrobial therapy for gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While the disease and economic impact of gram-negative bacilli bloodstream infections (GNB-BSI) are high, treatment strategies, including transitioning from intravenous antimicrobial therapy (IVAT) to oral stepdown antimicrobial therapy (OSAT) are still in their nascent stage of development. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the clinical effectiveness of OSAT compared with IVAT for GNB-BSI. Medline and Embase were searched from January 1980 to March 2025, along with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing OSAT with IVAT were included. Three investigators screened studies, extracted data, assessed study quality, and risk of bias, following PRISMA guidelines, ROBINS-E for observational studies and RoB 2 for randomized trials. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results: Sixteen studies involving 4,858 patients who received OSAT and 4,961 patients who received IVAT were extracted for review. The pooled risk ratio for mortality and treatment failure in the primary analysis which included studies adjusting for confounders (n = 3) was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 2.14; Conclusions: Although an imbalance in the baseline characteristics of patients with GNB-BSI across the studies warranted closer attention, OSAT may be as effective as IVAT for GNB-BSI without compromising clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, high-quality RCTs are needed before making definitive recommendations.
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.