ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2013
Antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute rhinosinusitis is not in agreement with European recommendations.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Decisions regarding antibiotic prescribing for acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice. A qualitative focus group study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2023Article
- Clinical decision support system RHINA in the diagnosis and treatment of acute or chronic rhinosinusitis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Quality assessment in general practice: diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Article
- Integrating qualitative research methods into care improvement efforts within a learning health system: addressing antibiotic overuse.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Antibiotic Resistance: What are the Opportunities for Primary Care in Alleviating the Crisis?Frontiers in public health · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the potential overprescribing in patients with acute rhinosinusitis across six countries with different antibiotic prescribing rates and different prevalence of antibiotic resistance. DESIGN, SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A cross-sectional study including GPs from two Nordic countries, two Baltic countries and two Hispano-American countries registered patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) during three weeks in January 2008 as part of the EU-funded project "Health Alliance for Prudent Prescribing, Yield And Use of antimicrobial Drugs In the Treatment of respiratory tract infections" (HAPPY AUDIT).
main outcome measuresUse of antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis based on the recommendations in the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2007 (EP3OS).
resultsIn total, 618 participating GPs registered 33 273 patients with RTI of whom 1150 (3.46%) were considered to have acute rhinosinusitis. Over 50% of the patients with acute rhinosinusitis had symptoms for < 5 days and 81% were prescribed antibiotics. In total, 68% of the patients included were not prescribed antibiotics according to guidelines; 45% had symptoms < 5 days or no fever (possible overprescribing) and 23% had symptoms < 5 days and no fever (probable overprescribing).
conclusionA considerable number of patients with symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis were not managed according to European recommendations (EP3OS guidelines). To prevent overprescribing, efforts should be made to implement the recommendations in daily practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.