ArticleThe Journal of infection2019
Public acceptability of computer-controlled antibiotic management: An exploration of automated dosing and opportunities for implementation.
Article in The Journal of infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacokinetics and Customized Dosing of Vancomycin in Adult Patients With Hematological Malignancies: Status, Challenges, and Opportunities.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence, medications, pharmacogenomics, and ethics.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Article
- Real-time continuous measurement of lactate through a minimally invasive microneedle patch: a phase I clinical study.BMJ innovations · 2022Article
- Optimizing antimicrobial use: challenges, advances and opportunities.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2021Review
- Optimising antimicrobial use in humans - review of current evidence and an interdisciplinary consensus on key priorities for research.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A paucity of data describing citizen perceptions of novel technologies, including those containing unsupervised computer-controlled systems is currently available. We explored citizen perceptions of using a microneedle biosensor and automated dose control system at a university public festival. Groups of citizens (from 2-6 people per group) attended a short demonstration of a microneedle biosensor and automated dosing system versus a traditional phlebotomy approach over a two-day public festival. Individual groups discussed and reached consensus on a number of short questions regarding their perceptions on the acceptability of such technology. Over the two days, 100 groups participated (56/100 day 1 and 44/100 day 2). The majority of individuals reported high acceptability of microneedle technology (median Likert score 9/10), but the majority believed that doctors should decide what dose of antibiotic is delivered (75/100; 75%). Groups concurred with the acceptability of microneedles to reduce blood tests and pain associated with them. However, concerns were reported over unsupervised computer-controlled programmes making decision about antibiotic dosing. This was driven by concerns over computer error and the inability of systems to contextualise decision making to the human and social context. Future work must consider the greater role of citizen engagement in the development of such technologies, to ensure their acceptability upon implementation in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30099085What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.