Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42327529›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2026

Antimicrobial Stewardship in Transplant Recipients: A Scoping Review of Interventions, Outcomes, and Policy Implications.

Aysel Pehlivanlı, Beril Kadıoğlu-Yaman, Hilal Akyel, Beyza Begüm Öztürk, Nuran Sarı, Bilgen Başgut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aysel PehlivanlıDepartment of Pharmacology, Başkent University School of Pharmacy, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-0162
Beril Kadıoğlu-YamanDepartment of Pharmacology, Başkent University School of Pharmacy, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8887-4826
Hilal AkyelDepartment of Pharmacology, Başkent University School of Pharmacy, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2841-6668
Beyza Begüm ÖztürkDepartment of Pharmacology, Başkent University School of Pharmacy, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7882-8652
Nuran SarıDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Başkent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3165-4520
Bilgen BaşgutDepartment of Pharmacology, Başkent University School of Pharmacy, Ankara, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5883-5583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review aimed to characterize antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in transplant recipients, compare antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral stewardship strategies, summarize clinical and economic outcomes, and identify knowledge gaps relevant to health policy. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Original research articles published between January 2015 and March 2025 were identified through searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Data were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results: Fifteen studies published between 2017 and 2025 were included. Thematic analysis categorized the interventions into the following domains: intervention structure, individualized strategies, diagnostic management, clinical and economic outcomes, comparative findings by population and transplant type, and implementation barriers. All studies included an antibacterial stewardship component (100%), whereas antifungal (20%) and antiviral (7%) interventions were comparatively limited. Interventions were primarily implemented as guideline-based optimization and prospective audit-and-feedback models. Infectious disease specialists participated in 87% of the studies, while clinical pharmacists were involved in 33%. Clinical effects were predominantly reported using process indicators. A reduction in antimicrobial treatment duration (47%) and improved guideline adherence (33%) were the most frequently reported outcomes. Studies evaluating mortality and graft survival were limited (27%), and most did not demonstrate significant differences. Economic outcomes were reported in 73% of the studies, with program-level cost reductions ranging from 20% to 40%. The most common implementation barriers were high resource requirements and heterogeneity of guidelines. Conclusion: Antimicrobial stewardship practices in transplant recipients are primarily focused on antibacterial management and are associated with improvements in short-term process indicators. However, evidence regarding long-term clinical outcomes and antifungal and antiviral stewardship practices remains limited. Developing transplant-specific, multidisciplinary, and sustainable AMS models is essential for antimicrobial resistance control and patient safety in this high-risk population.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial stewardshiphematopoietic stem cell transplantationpolicyscoping reviewsolid organ transplantationtransplantation

Identifiers

PMID42327529
PMCPMC13277605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.