Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30482238›Full record

SynthesisTrials2018

An analysis of reporting quality of prospective studies examining community antibiotic use and resistance.

Mina Bakhit, Chris Del Mar, Anna Mae Scott, Tammy Hoffmann

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Antibiotics versus no treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in residents of aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Mina BakhitCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia. mbakhit@bond.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6162-3362
Chris Del MarCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Anna Mae ScottCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Tammy HoffmannCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1044904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals.

methodsThe quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field.

resultsThe mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59% for trials (14%, 36-84%) and 52% for cohort studies (17%, 13-70%). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies.

conclusionsThe quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyDrug Resistance, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsChecklistCommunity-Acquired InfectionsGuideline AdherenceHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic resistancePrimary careQuality of reporting

Identifiers

PMID30482238
PMCPMC6258384

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.