Variation in antibiotic use across intensive care units (ICU): A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Antibiotics are commonly used in intensive care units (ICUs), yet differences in antibiotic use across ICUs are unknown. Herein, we studied antibiotic use across ICUs and examined factors that contributed to variation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Ontario's Critical Care Information System (CCIS), which included 201 adult ICUs and 2,013,397 patient days from January 2012 to June 2016. Antibiotic use was measured in days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days. ICU factors included ability to provide ventilator support (level 3) or not (level 2), ICU type (medical-surgical or other), and academic status. Patient factors included severity of illness using multiple-organ dysfunction score (MODS), ventilatory support, and central venous catheter (CVC) use. We analyzed the effect of these factors on variation in antibiotic use. RESULTS: Overall, 269,351 patients (56%) received antibiotics during their ICU stay. The mean antibiotic use was 624 (range 3-1460) DOT per 1,000 patient days. Antibiotic use was significantly higher in medical-surgical ICUs compared to other ICUs (697 vs 410 DOT per 1,000 patient days; P < .0001) and in level 3 ICUs compared to level 2 ICUs (751 vs 513 DOT per 1,000 patient days; P < .0001). Higher antibiotic use was associated with higher severity of illness and intensity of treatment. ICU and patient factors explained 47% of the variation in antibiotic use across ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use varies widely across ICUs, which is partially associated with ICUs and patient characteristics. These differences highlight the importance of antimicrobial stewardship to ensure appropriate use of antibiotics in ICU patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".