| Title |
European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/11591180-000000000-00000 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Zarb, Herman Goossens |
| Abstract |
All 27 EU member states and another seven countries participate in the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) project. ESAC carried out three hospital point-prevalence surveys on antimicrobial use. Point-prevalence surveys linked antimicrobial use to indication and also assessed dosing using a standardized methodology for data collection and online data submission with feedback capability using a dedicated web-based tool. The objectives of the ESAC hospital point-prevalence surveys were to first determine the feasibility of a pan-European survey and identify targets for quality improvement. Hospitals were voluntarily selected by the lead national or hospital representatives for each country. The WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification of drugs was used for classification of antimicrobials. The three surveys were carried out during a maximum of 2 weeks in the second quarter of 2006, 2008 and 2009. Each department had to be surveyed in 1 day. All systemic antibacterials (J01), rifampicin (J04AB), oral vancomycin (A07AA) and oral/rectal metronidazole (P01AB) were the antimicrobials surveyed, including the prescribed regimen. The number of participating hospitals increased from 20 to 172 from 2006 to 2009. The patient demographics and indications for treatment were similar throughout the three point-prevalence surveys. 'Reason in notes' and 'surgical prophylaxis >24 hours' were also similar. Guideline compliance (51%) was only introduced in the 2009 point-prevalence survey, replacing 'sample for culture and sensitivity' (<50% in 2006 and 2008) since samples were either not taken or no information was available for the majority (>50%) of patients. The use of combination therapy, although exhibiting a wide range within each category, was related to hospital type, with teaching and tertiary hospitals having a significantly higher use of combination therapy (teaching : non-teaching hospitals [p < 0.0001]; and primary : tertiary hospitals [p < 0.0001]). Point-prevalence surveys are useful when time and resources do not allow for continuous surveillance. Repeated point-prevalence surveys within the same institution(s) can be used to monitor trends and effectiveness of antimicrobial-stewardship initiatives. Targets should be set as quality indicators for the individual hospital(s) and effectiveness of any intervention monitored through repeated point-prevalence surveys. Spin-off initiatives, such as the Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children, and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control point-prevalence survey on healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use, will utilize adapted versions of WebPPS, the point-prevalence survey software developed by ESAC. WebPPS will also be made available for non-commercial use to third parties. Interest has been shown from three continents outside Europe, namely North America, Australia and Africa. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 36 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 38 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2014.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,511
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,250
of 285,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#411
of 1,219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.