Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29654036›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Improving antibiotic prescribing by general practitioners: a protocol for a systematic review of interventions involving pharmacists.

Sajal K Saha, Lesley Hawes, Danielle Mazza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Sajal K SahaDepartment of General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Building 1, 270 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia.
Lesley HawesDepartment of General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Building 1, 270 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia.
Danielle MazzaDepartment of General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Building 1, 270 Ferntree Gully Road, Notting Hill, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEffective antibiotic options in general practice for patients with infections are declining significantly due to antibiotic over-prescribing and emerging antibiotic resistance. To better improve antibiotic prescribing by general practitioner (GP), pharmacist-GP collaborations have been promoted under antibiotic stewardship programmes. However, there is insufficient information about whether and how pharmacists help GPs to more appropriately prescribe antibiotics. This systematic review aims to determine whether pharmacist-led or pharmacist-involved interventions are effective at improving antibiotic prescribing by GPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of English language randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies cited in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL Plus, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases will be conducted. Studies will be included if a pharmacist is involved as the intervention provider and GPs are the intervention recipients in general practice setting. Data extraction and management will be conducted using Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data abstraction tools and a template for intervention description and replication. The Cochrane and ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment tools will be used to assess the methodological quality of studies. Primary outcome measures include changes (overall, broad spectrum and guidelines concordance) of GP-prescribed antibiotics. Secondary outcomes include quality of antibiotic prescribing, delayed antibiotic use, acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Meta-analysis for combined effect and forest plots, χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as no primary, personal or confidential data are being collected in this study. The findings will be disseminated to national and international scientific sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078478.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsGeneral PracticeInappropriate PrescribingPharmacyClinical ProtocolsHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Research DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic stewardshipgeneral practitionerinterventionspharmacistsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29654036
PMCPMC5898351

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.