Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29035872›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of medical education2017

A review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education.

Sarah L Silverberg, Vanessa E Zannella, Drew Countryman, Ana Patricia Ayala, Erica Lenton, Farah Friesen, Marcus Law

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. One size does not fit all: advanced practice provider considerations for the antimicrobial steward.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Sarah L SilverbergFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Vanessa E ZannellaFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Drew CountrymanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ana Patricia AyalaGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Erica LentonGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Farah FriesenCentre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marcus LawFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe reviewed the published literature on antimicrobial stewardship training in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to determine which interventions have been implemented, the extent to which they have been evaluated, and to understand which are most effective.

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2016. Four thousand three hundred eighty-five (4385) articles were identified and underwent title and abstract review. Only those articles that addressed antimicrobial stewardship interventions for medical trainees were included in the final review. We employed Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) to categorize intervention evaluations.

resultsOur review included 48 articles. The types of intervention varied widely amongst studies worldwide. Didactic teaching was used heavily in all settings, while student-specific feedback was used primarily in the postgraduate setting. The high-level evaluation was sparse, with 22.9% reporting a Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation; seventeen reported no evaluation. All but one article reported positive results from the intervention. No articles evaluated the impact of an intervention on undergraduate trainees' prescribing behaviour after graduation.

conclusionsThis study enhances our understanding of the extent of antimicrobial stewardship in the context of medical education. While our study demonstrates that medical schools are implementing antimicrobial stewardship interventions, rigorous evaluation of programs to determine whether such efforts are effective is lacking. We encourage more robust evaluation to establish effective, evidence-based approaches to training prescribers in light of the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial StewardshipAnti-Infective AgentsDrug Resistance, MicrobialEducation, MedicalHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Students, MedicalTeachingAnti-Infective Agentsantibiotic prescribingantimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial stewardshippostgraduate medical educationundergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID29035872
PMCPMC5694692

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.