Overuse and misuse of antibiotics have led to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pose a significant threat due to adverse drug reactions, increased healthcare costs, and poor patient outcomes. Antibiotic stewardship programs, including antibiotic de-escalation, aim to optimize antibiotic use and to reduce the development of antibiotic resistance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to fill the gap by analyzing the current literature on the implications of antibiotic de-escalation in patients on antibiotic use, duration of hospital stay, mortality, and cost; to update clinical practice recommendations for the proper use of antibiotics; and to offer insightful information about the efficacy of antibiotic de-escalation. Based on the PRISMA 2020 recommendations, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases and reference lists of identified studies. Eligible studies were published in English, conducted in humans, and evaluated the impact of antibiotic de-escalation on antibiotic consumption, length of hospitalization, mortality, or cost in hospitalized adult patients. Data were extracted using a standardized form, and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The data from 25 studies were pooled and analyzed using the Revman-5 software, and statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using a chi-square test and I2 statistics. Among the total studies, seven studies were conducted in pediatric patients and the remaining studies were conducted in adults. The studies showed a wide range of de-escalation rates, with most studies reporting a rate above 50%. In some studies, de-escalation was associated with a decrease in antimicrobial utilization and mean length of stay, but the impact on overall cost was mixed. Our pooled analysis for mortality reported that a significant difference was observed between the de-escalation group and the non-de-escalation group in a random effect model (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.52–0.86, p = 0.001). The results suggest that de-escalation therapy can be applied in different healthcare settings and patient populations. However, the de-escalation rate varied depending on the study population and definition of de-escalation. Despite this variation, the results of this systematic review support the importance of de-escalation as a strategy to optimize antibiotic therapy and to reduce the development of subsequent antibiotic resistance. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of de-escalation on patient outcomes and to standardize the definition of de-escalation to allow for better comparison of studies.

The amount of data regarding the use of herbs/herbal products in cancer clinical trials at times creates a great challenge for oncologists to prescribe or counsel patients. It urges critical evaluation of the quality of clinical trials. Herein, for the first time, the clinical trials for herbs used in cancer were critically evaluated on the basis of three widely used scales, i.e., Jadad, Delphi, and Cochrane scales. The literature was collected with the help of online databases, journals, libraries, and books using a number of specific keywords as mentioned in detail in forthcoming sections. A total of 73 clinical trials were extracted, evaluated, and scored for 14 herbs, according to the predefined criteria mentioned below. A major deficiency of “non-blinding of clinical trials” was observed. The principal component analysis revealed four components (PC1–PC4) with a total variability of 68.21%, wherein the highest percentage variability was observed for PC1 loaded with “non-blinding of the clinical trials, no concealment of the treatment allocation, non-blindness of the patient and care provider”, which accounted for 30.81% of the total variability. The next major variability of 14.70% was observed for PC2 loaded with “non-randomization of the studies, non-blinding of the outcome assessors, no proper drop-out procedures, and lack of information regarding baseline characteristics for the groups”. Pearson’s correlation further confirmed a similar correlation pattern for the mentioned deficiencies (p = 0.05). An in-house grading scale was developed, showing a very small portion (16.44%), i.e., 12/73 studies with a good quality, whereas the majority (57.54%) of the studies, i.e., 42/73, were found to be of poor quality. The rules and regulations governing the quality of clinical trials needs to be more stringent and updated for the natural products/herbs used in cancer clinical trials.