Exploring variability in antibiograms: a cross-sectional study.

IF 3.3 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance Pub Date : 2025-06-13 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlaf084
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.

探讨抗生素谱的变异性:一项横断面研究。
背景:抗生素图是指导经验性抗菌药物处方和监测抗菌药物耐药性的重要工具;然而,在实践中对其实施和解释存在着挑战。可变格式可能是一个影响因素。本研究探讨了抗生素谱数据呈现的可变性,以确定改进的机会。方法:根据CLSI M39指南(第五版,2022)和相关文献,通过目视检查对安大略省各医院的抗生素图进行一般格式和风格、生物特异性数据呈现和分层评估。按类型对医院进行分类,并进行描述性分析。结果:共纳入60家医院的43张抗生素图,其中大型社区医院占33.3%;学术教学占26.7%;20%是小型社区;11.7%为中等社区;8.5%是复杂的持续护理/康复机构。所有抗生素图都报告了至少1年的数据,其中26.5%的数据来自多个机构。大多数报告的生物至少有30株分离物(23.2%),或者包括关于小数量解释的陈述(69.8%)。只有27.9%包含了关于排除重复的声明,18.6%包含了如何使用抗生素的指导。金黄色葡萄球菌、MRSA和MSSA的数据分别在39.5%的抗生素谱中报告。几乎一半的抗生素图包含至少一种分层方法;标本来源最常见(39.5%);18.6% (n = 8)包括加权发生率综合征联合抗生素谱(WISCA)。结论:安大略省各医院抗生素谱数据呈现存在显著差异。额外的格式标准化可能有助于改善临床决策和监测抗菌素耐药性趋势的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信