Valerie Leung, Marwah Alameri, Huda Almohri, Kevin A Brown, Nick Daneman, Julianne V Kus, Larissa M Matukas, Kevin L Schwartz, Bradley J Langford
{"title":"Exploring variability in antibiograms: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Valerie Leung, Marwah Alameri, Huda Almohri, Kevin A Brown, Nick Daneman, Julianne V Kus, Larissa M Matukas, Kevin L Schwartz, Bradley J Langford","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlaf084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antibiograms are important tools for guiding empirical antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR); however, there are challenges to their implementation and interpretation in practice. Variable formatting may be a contributing factor. This study explores variability in antibiogram data presentation to identify opportunities for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Antibiograms from hospitals in Ontario were evaluated by visual inspection for general formatting and style, organism-specific data presentation and stratification based on CLSI M39 guidelines (Fifth Edition, 2022) and relevant literature. Hospitals were categorized by type and descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three antibiograms from 60 hospitals were included: 33.3% were large community; 26.7% were academic teaching; 20% were small community; 11.7% were medium community; and 8.5% were complex continuing care/rehabilitation facilities. All antibiograms reported at least 1 year of data, with 26.5% aggregating data from multiple facilities. Most either reported on organisms with at least 30 isolates (23.2%) or included a statement about interpretation of small numbers (69.8%). Only 27.9% included a statement about exclusion of duplicates, and 18.6% included guidance on how to use the antibiogram. Data were reported separately for <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>, MRSA and MSSA in 39.5% of antibiograms. Almost half of antibiograms incorporated at least one method of stratification; specimen source was most common (39.5%); and 18.6% (<i>n</i> = 8) included a weighted-incidence syndromic combination antibiogram (WISCA).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is significant variability in antibiogram data presentation across Ontario hospitals. Additional format standardization may help improve use for clinical decision-making and monitoring of AMR trends.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"7 3","pages":"dlaf084"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12163904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaf084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Antibiograms are important tools for guiding empirical antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR); however, there are challenges to their implementation and interpretation in practice. Variable formatting may be a contributing factor. This study explores variability in antibiogram data presentation to identify opportunities for improvement.
Methods: Antibiograms from hospitals in Ontario were evaluated by visual inspection for general formatting and style, organism-specific data presentation and stratification based on CLSI M39 guidelines (Fifth Edition, 2022) and relevant literature. Hospitals were categorized by type and descriptive analysis was performed.
Results: Forty-three antibiograms from 60 hospitals were included: 33.3% were large community; 26.7% were academic teaching; 20% were small community; 11.7% were medium community; and 8.5% were complex continuing care/rehabilitation facilities. All antibiograms reported at least 1 year of data, with 26.5% aggregating data from multiple facilities. Most either reported on organisms with at least 30 isolates (23.2%) or included a statement about interpretation of small numbers (69.8%). Only 27.9% included a statement about exclusion of duplicates, and 18.6% included guidance on how to use the antibiogram. Data were reported separately for Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA and MSSA in 39.5% of antibiograms. Almost half of antibiograms incorporated at least one method of stratification; specimen source was most common (39.5%); and 18.6% (n = 8) included a weighted-incidence syndromic combination antibiogram (WISCA).
Conclusions: There is significant variability in antibiogram data presentation across Ontario hospitals. Additional format standardization may help improve use for clinical decision-making and monitoring of AMR trends.