The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improving Empiric Antibiotic Selection Using Computer Decision Support
Abstract
Background: Physicians frequently need to start antibiotic therapy before the results of bacterial cultures and antibiotic susceptibility tests are available. We developed and evaluated a computerized antibiotic consultant to assist physicians in the selection of appropriate empiric antibiotics. Methods: We used a two-stage random-selection study to compare antibiotics suggested by the antibiotic consultant with 482 associated antibiotic susceptibility results and the concurrent antibiotics ordered by physicians. The antibiotics ordered by randomized physicians were then compared between crossover periods of antibiotic consultant use. Results: The antibiotic consultant suggested an antibiotic regimen to which all isolated pathogens were shown to be susceptible for 453 (94%) of 482 culture results, while physicians ordered an antibiotic regimen to which all isolated pathogens were susceptible for 369 culture results (77%) (P<.001). The physicians who prescribed antibiotics to which all pathogens were susceptible did so a mean of 21 hours after the culture specimens were collected. Physicians ordered appropriate antibiotics within 12 hours of the culture collection significantly more often when they had use of the antibiotic consultant than during the period before use (P<.035). Moreover, 88% of the physicians stated they would recommend the program to other physicians, 85% said the program improved their antibiotic selection, and 81% said they felt use of the program improved patient care. Conclusions: Information from computer-based medical records can be used to help improve physicians' selection of empiric antibiotics for infections. (Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:878-884)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Chaudhry, B., Wang, J., Wu, S., Maglione, M., Mojica, W., Roth, E., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125 · Cited by 3,159
Ibrahim, E. H., Sherman, G., Ward, S., Fraser, V. J., & Kollef, M. H. (2000) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.118.1.146 · Cited by 1,779
Kaushal, R., Shojania, K. G., & Bates, D. W. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.12.1409 · Cited by 30
Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients
Davey, P., Marwick, C. A., Scott, C. L., Charani, E., McNeil, K., Brown, E., Gould, I. M., Ramsay, C. R., & Michie, S. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003543.pub4 · Cited by 1,068
Ammenwerth, E., Schnell-Inderst, P., Machan, C., & Siebert, U. (2008) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2667 · Cited by 668
Metadata
- Authors
- Evans, R. S.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1994-04-25
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 878
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4299808714
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Empiric Antibiotic Selection Using Computer Decision Support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420080076008
- The paper
- Evans, R. S. (1994). Improving Empiric Antibiotic Selection Using Computer Decision Support. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420080076008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.