Cited by 187Antibiotic Use and ResistanceAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacySepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Havey, Thomas C, Fowler, Robert A, Daneman, Nick·2011·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for bloodstream infections is unknown. Shorter durations of therapy have been demonstrated to be as effective as longer durations for many common infections; similar findings in bacteremia could enable hospitals to reduce antibiotic utilization, adverse events, resistance and costs. Methods: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was conducted for the years 1947-2010. Controlled trials were identified that randomized patients to shorter versus longer durations of treatment for bacteremia, or the infectious foci most commonly causing bacteremia in critically ill patients (catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia, pyelonephritis and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI)). Results: Twenty-four eligible trials were identified, including one trial focusing exclusively on bacteremia, zero in catheter related bloodstream infection, three in intra-abdominal infection, six in pyelonephritis, thirteen in pneumonia and one in skin and soft tissue infection. Thirteen studies reported on 227 patients with bacteremia allocated to 'shorter' or 'longer' durations of treatment. Outcome data were available for 155 bacteremic patients: neonatal bacteremia ( n = 66); intra-abdominal infection (40); pyelonephritis (9); and pneumonia (40). Among bacteremic patients receiving shorter (5-7 days) versus longer (7-21 days) antibiotic therapy, no significant difference was detected with respect to rates of clinical cure (45/52 versus 47/49, risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.01), microbiologic cure (28/28 versus 30/32, risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.21), and survival (15/17 versus 26/29, risk ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.23). Conclusions: No significant differences in clinical cure, microbiologic cure and survival were detected among bacteremic patients receiving shorter versus longer duration antibiotic therapy. An adequately powered randomized trial of bacteremic patients is needed to confirm these findings.

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 · 10.1186/cc10545

Cites

60 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two meta-analyses reported reduced short-term mortality (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87) with prolonged infusion of beta-lactams.

    “Two meta-analyses reported similar results supporting reduced short-term mortality (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87)with prolonged infusion of beta-lactams (232,233).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [233]

    The Results section, “Outcomes among patients with bacteremia” (page unavailable), compares shorter with longer antibiotic courses and reports no significant difference in survival. A search for prolonged or continuous beta-lactam infusion and the stated mortality estimate found no passage addressing infusion strategy, so this copy cannot verify the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Havey, T. C., Fowler, R. A., & Daneman, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Daneman, Nick
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2011-11-15
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
R267-R267
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146470820
Cited by
187
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
bacteremia, antibiotic duration, short-course antibiotic therapy, bloodstream infection, clinical cure, microbiologic cure, survival, catheter-related bloodstream infection, intra-abdominal infection, pyelonephritis, pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, neonatal bacteremia, antibiotic use
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Humans, Pyelonephritis, Time Factors, Bacteremia, Pneumonia, Bacterial, Soft Tissue Infections, Catheter-Related Infections, Intraabdominal Infections

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