Dataset Information

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 trials it was found that the bacteriostatic agent was superior to the bactericidal agent in efficacy. Only 1 trial found that the bactericidal agent was superior; in that case, the inferiority of the static agent was explainable by underdosing of the drug based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Thus, virtually all available data from high-quality, RCTs demonstrate no intrinsic superiority of bactericidal compared to bacteriostatic agents. Other drug characteristics such as optimal dosing, pharmacokinetics, and tissue penetration may be more important efficacy drivers.

SUBMITTER: Wald-Dickler N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5905615 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review.

Wald-Dickler Noah N Holtom Paul P Spellberg Brad B

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20180401 9

We sought to determine if clinical data validate the dogma that bactericidal antibiotics are more clinically effective than bacteriostatic agents. We performed a systematic literature review of published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a bacteriostatic agent to a bactericidal agent in the treatment of clinical, bacterial infections. Of 56 identified trials published since 1985, 49 found no significant difference in efficacy between bacteriostatic and bactericidal agents. In 6 ...[more]

PMID: 29293890

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 misinformation is a danger to public health. A range of formats are used by health campaigns to correct beliefs but data on their effectiveness is limited. We aimed to identify A) whether three commonly used myth-busting formats are effective for correcting COVID-19 myths, immediately and after a delay, and B) which is the most effective.MethodsWe tested whether three common correction formats could reduce beliefs in COVID-19 myths: (i) question-answer, ii) fact-only, (ii) fact-myth. n = 2215 participants (n = 1291 after attrition), UK representative of age and gender, were randomly assigned to one of the three formats. n = 11 myths were acquired from fact-checker websites and piloted to ensure believability. Participants rated myth belief at baseline, were shown correction images (the intervention), and then rated myth beliefs immediately post-intervention and after a delay of at least 6 days. A partial replication, n = 2084 UK representative, was also completed with immediate myth rating only. Analysis used mixed models with participants and myths as random effects.ResultsMyth agreement ratings were significantly lower than baseline for all correction formats, both immediately and after the delay; all β's > 0.30, p's < .001. Thus, all formats were effective at lowering beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation. Correction formats only differed where baseline myth agreement was high, with question-answer and fact-myth more effective than fact-only immediately; β = 0.040, p = .022 (replication set: β = 0.053, p = .0075) and β = - 0.051, p = .0059 (replication set: β = - 0.061, p < .001), respectively. After the delay however, question-answer was more effective than fact-myth, β = 0.040, p =. 031.ConclusionOur results imply that COVID-19 myths can be effectively corrected using materials and formats typical of health campaigns. Campaign designers can use our results to choose between correction formats. When myth belief was high, question-answer format was more effective than a fact-only format immediately post-intervention, and after delay, more effective than fact-myth format.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the United Kingdom, three people die every day awaiting an organ transplant. To address this, Scotland and England plan to follow Wales and introduce opt-out donor consent. However, emotional barriers, myths, and misconceptions may deter potential registrants. Our objectives were to estimate the number of people who plan to opt-out of the donor register and to test whether emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) differentiated participants within this group. Finally, in an experimental manipulation, we tested whether intention to donate decreased by making emotional barriers more salient and increased following a widely used myth-busting intervention.DesignMixed between-within design.MethodsUK residents (n = 1,202) were asked whether they would choose opt-in, deemed consent, or opt-out/not sure if legislation changes to opt-out. Participants also completed measures of donor intentions at baseline, following a 12-item emotional barriers questionnaire and again, following a 9-item myth-busting intervention.ResultsFindings indicate that 66.1% of participants selected to opt-in to the donor register, 24.3% selected deemed consent, and 9.4% selected opt-out/not sure. Emotional barriers, notably fears surrounding bodily integrity, were significantly elevated in participants who selected opt-out/not sure. Increasing the salience of emotional barriers reduced donor intentions in the opt-out/not sure group. However, dispelling organ donation myths did not increase intention within this group.ConclusionsIf opt-out legislation is introduced in Scotland and England, approximately 10% of participants plan to opt-out or are not sure. Dispelling organ donation myths with facts may not be the best method of overcoming emotional barriers and increasing donor intentions for those planning to opt-out. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? In the United Kingdom, three people die every day waiting for an organ transplant. Although 90% of the UK population support organ donation, only 38% are registered donors. To address this, Scotland and England have recently proposed to introduce an opt-out system of donor consent. To date, limited research has investigated public attitudes and intentions regarding opt-out consent laws in Scotland and England. Emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) are key factors that may deter potential registrants. However, no research has examined these barriers in relation to proposed opt-out consent laws. Myth-busting is widely used around the world as part of campaigns promoting organ donation. The NHS currently use a myth-busting feature on their webpage to dispel harmful myths about organ donation; however, there is limited evidence of the impact this has on intentions to become an organ donor. What does this study add? Approximately 10% of UK participants plan to opt-out or are unsure of their decision, if the law changes to opt-out. Emotional barriers, notably, bodily integrity fears, are significantly elevated in people who plan to opt-out. Increasing the salience of emotional barriers reduced donor intentions for people who plan to opt-out. A myth-busting intervention had no effect on donor intentions for people who plan to opt-out of the donor register.

Dataset Information

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review.

Publications

Busting the Myth of "Static vs Cidal": A Systemic Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets