Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27575599›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2016

An Audit and Feedback Intervention for Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in General Dental Practice: The RAPiD Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.

Paula Elouafkaoui, Linda Young, Rumana Newlands, Eilidh M Duncan, Andrew Elders, Jan E Clarkson, Craig R Ramsay, Translation Research in a Dental Setting (TRiaDS) Research Methodology Group

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Systematic Review of Dental Antibiotic Stewardship Interventions.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paula ElouafkaouiNHS Education for Scotland (NES), Dundee Dental Education Centre, Frankland Building, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Linda YoungNHS Education for Scotland (NES), Dundee Dental Education Centre, Frankland Building, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Rumana NewlandsHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Eilidh M DuncanHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Andrew EldersNMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Jan E ClarksonNHS Education for Scotland (NES), Dundee Dental Education Centre, Frankland Building, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-2926
Craig R RamsayHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Translation Research in a Dental Setting (TRiaDS) Research Methodology Group
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBNHS Education for Scotland · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists' antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS AND

findingsAll 795 antibiotic prescribing NHS general dental practices in Scotland were included. Practices were randomised to the control (practices = 163; dentists = 567) or A&F intervention group (practices = 632; dentists = 1,999). A&F intervention practices were allocated to one of two A&F groups: (1) individualised graphical A&F comprising a line graph plotting an individual dentist's monthly antibiotic prescribing rate (practices = 316; dentists = 1,001); or (2) individualised graphical A&F plus a written behaviour change message synthesising and reiterating national guidance recommendations for dental antibiotic prescribing (practices = 316; dentists = 998). Intervention practices were also simultaneously randomised to receive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the graphical A&F plotting the monthly antibiotic prescribing rate of all dentists in the health board; and (ii) delivered at 0 and 6 mo or at 0, 6, and 9 mo, giving a total of eight intervention groups. The primary outcome, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antibiotic items dispensed per 100 NHS treatment claims over the 12 mo post-delivery of the baseline A&F. Primary outcome data was available for 152 control practices (dentists = 438) and 609 intervention practices (dentists = 1,550). At baseline, the number of antibiotic items prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims was 8.3 in the control group and 8.5 in the intervention group. At follow-up, antibiotic prescribing had decreased by 0.4 antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims in control practices and by 1.0 in intervention practices. This represents a significant reduction (-5.7%; 95% CI -10.2% to -1.1%; p = 0.01) in dentists' prescribing rate in the intervention group relative to the control group. Intervention subgroup analyses found a 6.1% reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists who had received the written behaviour change message relative to dentists who had not (95% CI -10.4% to -1.9%; p = 0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the prescribing rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI -8.6% to 0.1%; p = 0.06), nor between dentists who received A&F at 0 and 6 mo relative to those who received A&F at 0, 6, and 9 mo (0.02%; 95% CI -4.2% to 4.2%; p = 0.99). The key limitations relate to the use of routinely collected datasets which did not allow evaluation of any effects on inappropriate prescribing.

conclusionsA&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsFeedbackHumansInappropriate PrescribingMedical AuditPractice Patterns, Dentists'ScotlandAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID27575599
PMCPMC5004857
OpenAlexW2515027260

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.