Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29987079›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2018

Booklet for Childhood Fever in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Eefje G P M de Bont, Geert-Jan Dinant, Gijs Elshout, Gijs van Well, Nick A Francis, Bjorn Winkens, Jochen W L Cals

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eefje G P M de BontDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands eefje.debont@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Geert-Jan DinantDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gijs ElshoutDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gijs van WellDepartment of Pediatrics, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nick A FrancisDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Bjorn WinkensDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Research School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLCardiff University · GBErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFever is the most common reason for a child to be taken to a physician, yet the level of unwarranted antibiotic prescribing remains high. We aimed to determine the effect on antibiotic prescribing of providing an illness-focused interactive booklet on fever in children to out-of-hours primary care clinicians.

methodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in 20 out-of-hours general practice centers in the Netherlands. Children aged younger than 12 years with fever were included. Family physicians at the 10 intervention sites had access to an illness-focused interactive booklet between November 2015 and June 2016. The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing during the index consultation. Analysis was performed by fitting 2-level random intercept logistic regression models.

resultsThe trial took place among 3,518 family physicians and 25,355 children. The booklet was used in 28.5% of 11,945 consultations in the intervention group. Compared with usual care, access to the booklet did not significantly alter antibiotic prescribing during the index consultation (odds ratio = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.02; prescription rate, 23.5% vs 25.2%; intracluster correlation coefficient = 0.005). In contrast, use of the booklet significantly reduced antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94; prescription rate, 21.9% vs 25.2%; intracluster correlation coefficient = 0.002). Children managed by family physicians with access to the booklet were less likely to receive any drug prescription, and parents in the booklet group showed a reduced intention to consult again for similar illnesses.

conclusionsBenefit of an illness-focused interactive booklet in improving outcomes of childhood fever in out-of-hours primary care was largely restricted to the cases in which family physicians actually used the booklet. Insight into reasons for use and nonuse may inform future interventions of this type.

Indexed as

After-Hours CarePamphletsPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildChild, PreschoolCluster AnalysisDrug PrescriptionsFemaleFeverHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLogistic ModelsMaleNetherlandsAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticschildrenfamily practicefeverinappropriate prescribinginfectionsout-of-hourspediatricsphysicians’practice patternsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29987079
PMCPMC6037513
OpenAlexW2873336899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.