Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24647339›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The impact of policy guidelines on hospital antibiotic use over a decade: a segmented time series analysis.

Sujith J Chandy, Girish S Naik, Reni Charles, Visalakshi Jeyaseelan, Elena N Naumova, Kurien Thomas, Cecilia Stalsby Lundborg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Sujith J ChandyGlobal Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Girish S NaikDepartment of Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Reni CharlesDepartment of Pharmacy, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Visalakshi JeyaseelanDepartment of Biostatistics, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Elena N NaumovaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University School of Engineering, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America; Department of Gastrointestinal Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kurien ThomasDepartment of Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Cecilia Stalsby LundborgGlobal Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAntibiotic pressure contributes to rising antibiotic resistance. Policy guidelines encourage rational prescribing behavior, but effectiveness in containing antibiotic use needs further assessment. This study therefore assessed the patterns of antibiotic use over a decade and analyzed the impact of different modes of guideline development and dissemination on inpatient antibiotic use.

methodsAntibiotic use was calculated monthly as defined daily doses (DDD) per 100 bed days for nine antibiotic groups and overall. This time series compared trends in antibiotic use in five adjacent time periods identified as 'Segments,' divided based on differing modes of guideline development and implementation: Segment 1--Baseline prior to antibiotic guidelines development; Segment 2--During preparation of guidelines and booklet dissemination; Segment 3--Dormant period with no guidelines dissemination; Segment 4--Booklet dissemination of revised guidelines; Segment 5--Booklet dissemination of revised guidelines with intranet access. Regression analysis adapted for segmented time series and adjusted for seasonality assessed changes in antibiotic use trend.

resultsOverall antibiotic use increased at a monthly rate of 0.95 (SE = 0.18), 0.21 (SE = 0.08) and 0.31 (SE = 0.06) for Segments 1, 2 and 3, stabilized in Segment 4 (0.05; SE = 0.10) and declined in Segment 5 (-0.37; SE = 0.11). Segments 1, 2 and 4 exhibited seasonal fluctuations. Pairwise segmented regression adjusted for seasonality revealed a significant drop in monthly antibiotic use of 0.401 (SE = 0.089; p<0.001) for Segment 5 compared to Segment 4. Most antibiotic groups showed similar trends to overall use.

conclusionUse of overall and specific antibiotic groups showed varied patterns and seasonal fluctuations. Containment of rising overall antibiotic use was possible during periods of active guideline dissemination. Wider access through intranet facilitated significant decline in use. Stakeholders and policy makers are urged to develop guidelines, ensure active dissemination and enable accessibility through computer networks to contain antibiotic use and decrease antibiotic pressure.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHospitalsPractice Guidelines as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'SeasonsTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID24647339
PMCPMC3960230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.