Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27450462›Full record

SynthesisScandinavian journal of primary health care2016

Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators.

Laura Trolle Saust, Rikke Nygaard Monrad, Malene Plejdrup Hansen, Magnus Arpi, Lars Bjerrum

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antibiotic exposure and 'response failure' for subsequent respiratory tract infections: an observational cohort study of UK preschool children in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

5 authors.

Laura Trolle Sausta Department of Clinical Microbiology , Herlev University Hospital , Herlev , Denmark ;
Rikke Nygaard Monrada Department of Clinical Microbiology , Herlev University Hospital , Herlev , Denmark ;
Malene Plejdrup Hansenc Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice , Bond University , Robina , Australia ;
Magnus Arpia Department of Clinical Microbiology , Herlev University Hospital , Herlev , Denmark ;
Lars Bjerrumb Department of Public Health, Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen , Denmark ;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify existing quality indicators (QIs) for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of patients with infectious diseases in primary care.

designA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. We included studies with a description of the development of QIs for diagnosis and antibiotic use in patients with infectious diseases in primary care. We extracted information about (1) type of infection; (2) target for quality assessment; (3) methodology used for developing the QIs; and (4) whether the QIs were developed for a national or international application. The QIs were organised into three categories: (1) QIs focusing on the diagnostic process; (2) QIs focusing on the decision to prescribe antibiotics; and (3) QIs concerning the choice of antibiotics.

resultsEleven studies were included in this review and a total of 130 QIs were identified. The majority (72%) of the QIs were focusing on choice of antibiotics, 22% concerned the decision to prescribe antibiotics, and few (6%) concerned the diagnostic process. Most QIs were either related to respiratory tract infections or not related to any type of infection. A consensus method (mainly the Delphi technique), based on either a literature study or national guidelines, was used for the development of QIs in all of the studies.

conclusionsThe small number of existing QIs predominantly focuses on the choice of antibiotics and is often drug-specific. There is a remarkable lack of diagnostic QIs. Future development of new QIs, especially disease-specific QIs concerning the diagnostic process, is needed. KEY POINTS In order to improve the use of antibiotics in primary care, measurable instruments, such as quality indicators, are needed to assess the quality of care being provided. A total of 11 studies were found, including 130 quality indicators for diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care. The majority of the identified quality indicators were focusing on the choice of antibiotics and only a few concerned the diagnostic process. All quality indicators were developed by means of a consensus method and were often based on literature studies or guidelines.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCommunicable DiseasesConsensusDecision MakingDelphi TechniqueDrug UtilizationHumansInterprofessional RelationsPrimary Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticgeneral practiceinfectious diseasesprimary carequality assessmentreview quality indicator

Identifiers

PMID27450462
PMCPMC5036015

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.