Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30526584›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2018

An audit of antimicrobial prescribing by dental practitioners in the north east of England and Cumbria.

A Sturrock, D Landes, T Robson, L Bird, A Ojelabi, J Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. An evaluation of sepsis in dentistry.British dental journal · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

A SturrockFaculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, Sciences Complex, City Campus, Chester Road, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, UK. andrew.sturrock@sunderland.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3316-1412
D LandesPHE North East, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
T RobsonLocal Dental Network, Tees, Durham, Darlington, UK.
L BirdHealth Education North EastNewcastle Dental Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
A OjelabiFaculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, Sciences Complex, City Campus, Chester Road, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, UK.
J LingFaculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, Sciences Complex, City Campus, Chester Road, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials is a significant threat to global public health. In England, approximately 5% of all antimicrobial items are prescribed by dentists, despite the limited indications for their use in the treatment of oral infections in published clinical guidelines. The objective of this study was to survey antimicrobial prescribing by dental practitioners in North East England and Cumbria, identify educational and training needs and develop a self-assessment tool that can be used for Continued Professional Development by individual practitioners.

methodsDuring October 2016, 275 dental practitioners used a standardised form to record anonymous information about patients who had been prescribed antimicrobials. Clinical information and prescribing details were compared against clinical guidelines published by the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners UK.

resultsDental practitioners provided data on 1893 antimicrobial prescriptions. There was documented evidence of systemic spread, such as pyrexia in 18% of patients. Dentists recorded patients' pain (91.1% of patients), local lymph gland involvement (41.5%) gross diffuse swelling (55.5%) dysphagia (7.2%) and trismus (13.6%). Reasons for prescribing antimicrobials included patient expectations (25.8%), patient preference (24.8%), time pressures (10.9%), and patients uncooperative with other treatments (10.4%). The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials were amoxicillin, accounting for 61.2% of prescriptions, followed by metronidazole (29.9%). Most prescriptions for amoxicillin were for either 5 days (66.8%) or 7 days (29.6%) and most prescriptions for metronidazole were for a 5-day course (65.2%) or 7-day (18.6%) course.

conclusionIn most cases, when an antimicrobial was prescribed, practitioners used the correct choice of agents and usually prescribed these at the correct dose. However, some evidence of suboptimal prescribing practices when compared to the Faculty of General Dental Practitioner guidelines were identified. The audit has identified training needs across the region and aided the development of Continued Professional Development sessions. Further work to identify barriers and facilitators for improving antimicrobial prescribing and determining appropriate methods to improve clinical practice are required.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmoxicillinAnti-Infective AgentsChildChild, PreschoolEnglandFemaleHumansInappropriate PrescribingInfantMaleMedical AuditMetronidazoleAmoxicillinAnti-Infective AgentsMetronidazoleAntibioticsAuditDentalPrescribing

Identifiers

PMID30526584
PMCPMC6288968

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.