Is Tradition Trumping Evidence in the Treatment of Young, Febrile Infants?

Schroeder, Alan R.; Roberts, Kenneth B.

doi:10.1542/hpeds.2016-0013

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the increasing incidence of ampicillin resistance, particularly among gram‐negative organisms, 4,7,9 argues strongly for better antibiotic stewardship on a national level. A number of expert authors have advocated dropping empiric Listeria coverage as part of the treatment of febrile infants, particularly infants 29 to 90 days old 16,17 . Some authors continue to advocate empiric Listeria coverage 6 .…”

Section: Why Empiric Ampicillin Is Unnecessarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of expert authors have advocated dropping empiric Listeria coverage as part of the treatment of febrile infants, particularly infants 29 to 90 days old. 16,17 Some authors continue to advocate empiric Listeria coverage. 6 It is interesting to note, however, that the incidence of Staph aureus bacteremia in recent case series is much higher than that reported for Listeria, accounting for 6-9% of bacteremia cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empiric Listeria monocytogenes Antibiotic Coverage for Febrile Infants (Age, 0‐90 Days)

Stephens

Steiner

2017

Journal of Hospital Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The “Things We Do for No Reason” series reviews practices which have become common parts of hospital care but which may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards, but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

show abstract

Section: Why Empiric Ampicillin Is Unnecessarymentioning

confidence: 99%