Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) Point‐Prevalence Survey of Antibacterial Use in 20 European Hospitals in 2006

Ansari, Faranak, Erntell, Mats, Goossens, Herman, Davey, Peter·2009·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Point-prevalence surveys have been used to document antimicrobial use in hospitals for >20 years. However, published surveys are inconsistent with respect to population, indication, and the details of therapy that were included. We aimed to standardize a method for surveillance of antibacterial use in hospitals from different health care systems and to identify targets for quality improvement. METHODS: We adapted a Web-based reporting system from STRAMA, the Swedish Strategic Programme against antibiotic resistance. One hospital from each of 20 countries took part in the survey, which was completed during 2 calendar weeks during 1 April 2006 through 31 May 2006. The survey included all inpatient beds for adults and children and identified all patients who were receiving systemic antibacterial treatments on the day of survey and all patients who had received antibacterial prophylaxis for surgery on the previous day. RESULTS: On the day of survey there were 11,571 inpatients in the 20 participating hospitals, of whom 30.1% were receiving antibacterial treatment (range, 19%-59%). The most common anatomic sites of infection for which antibacterials were prescribed were respiratory tract (24%); skin, bone, and joint (18%); intra-abdominal organs (16%); and urinary tract (11%). The following 3 quality indicators were identified: indication documented in case notes (64%), prophylaxis for surgery not continued for >24 h (60%), and therapy for community-acquired pneumonia not including third-generation cephalosporins or quinolones (78.5%). CONCLUSION: A Web-based method for a point-prevalence survey was successfully piloted in 20 hospitals across Europe and offers a standardized instrument that can identify targets for quality improvement.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/644617

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Ansari, F., Erntell, M., Goossens, H., & Davey, P.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2009-11-15
Volume
49
Issue
10
Pages
1496-1504
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2160647339
Cited by
233
References
1
FWCI
20.79
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: The European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) Point‐Prevalence Survey of Antibacterial Use in 20 European Hospitals in 2006. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/644617
The paper
Ansari, F., Erntell, M., Goossens, H., & Davey, P. (2009). The European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) Point‐Prevalence Survey of Antibacterial Use in 20 European Hospitals in 2006. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/644617

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.