Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23361336›Full record

ReviewVirulence2013

How to educate prescribers in antimicrobial stewardship practices.

Céline Pulcini, Inge C Gyssens

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virulence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Céline PulciniService d'Infectiologie, CHU de Nice, Nice, France.
Inge C Gyssens

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread antimicrobial use has compromised its value, leading to a crisis of antimicrobial resistance. A major cause of misuse is insufficient knowledge of prescribing of antimicrobials in many categories of professionals. An important principle of antimicrobial stewardship is avoiding selection pressure in the patient, both on pathogen and commensal by avoiding unnecessary use, choosing the least broad-spectrum antibiotic, adequate doses, a good timing and the shortest possible duration. Up to now, most educational efforts have been targeted at professionals (mostly medical doctors) after their training and at the adult public. In the past few years, progress has been made in educating children. It is now crucial that academia and ministries of Health and Education jointly focus on an adapted undergraduate medical/professional curriculum that teaches all necessary principles of microbiology, infectious diseases and clinical pharmacology, with emphasis on the principles of prudent prescribing.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsDrug PrescriptionsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialDrug TherapyDrug UtilizationEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic policiesantibiotic prescribingantimicrobial stewardshipclinical practice guidelinesimplementationintervention strategiespostgraduate educationundergraduate curriculum

Identifiers

PMID23361336
PMCPMC3654620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.