ArticleBMC oral health2018
An audit of antimicrobial prescribing by dental practitioners in the north east of England and Cumbria.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge and behaviors of Turkish dentists regarding rational drug use in pediatric patients: a cross-sectional survey.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- From prescription to protection: combating antimicrobial resistance in dental practice.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant dental antibiotic prescribing in the United States: A qualitative study of the National Dental PBRN.Journal of public health dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of guideline concordant antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs dental settings among those with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Utilization of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Cardiac Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Study.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2023Article
- Determinants of clinician and patient to prescription of antimicrobials: Case of Mulanje, Southern Malawi.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- To prophylactically extract or not to extract partially erupted mesio-angularly impacted lower third molars?British dental journal · 2021Article
- An evaluation of sepsis in dentistry.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Assessment of prescribing patterns of antibiotics using National Treatment Guidelines and World Health Organization prescribing indicators at the Ghana Police Hospital: a pilot study.The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
- How did COVID-19 impact on dental antibiotic prescribing across England?British dental journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.