Cited by 52Antibiotic Use and ResistanceAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaInfection Control in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implications of reducing antibiotic treatment duration for antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings: A modelling study and meta-analysis

Open access
Mo, Yin, Oonsivilai, Mathupanee, Lim, Cherry, Niehus, Rene, Cooper, Ben S.·2023·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

Background: Reducing antibiotic treatment duration is a key component of hospital antibiotic stewardship interventions. However, its effectiveness in reducing antimicrobial resistance is uncertain and a clear theoretical rationale for the approach is lacking. In this study, we sought to gain a mechanistic understanding of the relation between antibiotic treatment duration and the prevalence of colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitalised patients. Methods and findings: We constructed 3 stochastic mechanistic models that considered both between- and within-host dynamics of susceptible and resistant gram-negative bacteria, to identify circumstances under which shortening antibiotic duration would lead to reduced resistance carriage. In addition, we performed a meta-analysis of antibiotic treatment duration trials, which monitored resistant gram-negative bacteria carriage as an outcome. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials published from 1 January 2000 to 4 October 2022, which allocated participants to varying durations of systemic antibiotic treatments. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The meta-analysis was performed using logistic regression. Duration of antibiotic treatment and time from administration of antibiotics to surveillance culture were included as independent variables. Both the mathematical modelling and meta-analysis suggested modest reductions in resistance carriage could be achieved by reducing antibiotic treatment duration. The models showed that shortening duration is most effective at reducing resistance carriage in high compared to low transmission settings. For treated individuals, shortening duration is most effective when resistant bacteria grow rapidly under antibiotic selection pressure and decline rapidly when stopping treatment. Importantly, under circumstances whereby administered antibiotics can suppress colonising bacteria, shortening antibiotic treatment may increase the carriage of a particular resistance phenotype. We identified 206 randomised trials, which investigated antibiotic duration. Of these, 5 reported resistant gram-negative bacteria carriage as an outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis determined that a single additional antibiotic treatment day is associated with a 7% absolute increase in risk of resistance carriage (80% credible interval 3% to 11%). Interpretation of these estimates is limited by the low number of antibiotic duration trials that monitored carriage of resistant gram-negative bacteria, as an outcome, contributing to a large credible interval. Conclusions: In this study, we found both theoretical and empirical evidence that reducing antibiotic treatment duration can reduce resistance carriage, though the mechanistic models also highlighted circumstances under which reducing treatment duration can, perversely, increase resistance. Future antibiotic duration trials should monitor antibiotic-resistant bacteria colonisation as an outcome to better inform antibiotic stewardship policies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004013

Cites

42 of 42 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

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?

  • Median time to pathogen identification with standard techniques is approximately 96 h.

    “Median times to pathogen identification with standard techniques have been reported near 96 h, a critical window during which unnecessary antimicrobial exposure can increase adverse events and the risk of colonization by resistant organisms (3–5).”

    From Optimized use of the FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis panel for early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results section discusses antibiotic duration and resistant-bacteria carriage, but does not report a time to pathogen identification. Searches for “96 h” and conventional microbiology turnaround time found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins JP, Jelena S, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. 2021 [cited 2021 May 6]. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-08

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mo, Y., Oonsivilai, M., Lim, C., Niehus, R., & Cooper, B. S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Mo, Yin
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2023-06-15
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
e1004013
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W4380870364
Cited by
52
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 2
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • National Medical Research Council (NMRC/Fellowship/0051/2017)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/V028456/1)
  • Wellcome Trust (206736/Z/17/Z, 106698/Z/14/Z)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
antibiotic duration, antimicrobial resistance, hospital antibiotic stewardship, Gram-negative bacteria, bacterial colonization, mechanistic mathematical model, antibiotic selection pressure
MeSH terms
Duration of Therapy, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Humans, Drug Resistance, Bacterial

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