Observational studyBMJ open2019
Using a period incidence survey to compare antibiotic use in children between a university hospital and a district hospital in a country with low antimicrobial resistance: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic use in children before, during and after hospitalisation.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe and compare antibiotic use in relation to indications, doses, adherence rate to guidelines and rates of broad-spectrum antibiotics (BSA) in two different paediatric departments with different academic cultures, and identify areas with room for improvement.
designProspective observational survey of antibiotic use.
settingPaediatric departments in a university hospital (UH) and a district hospital (DH) in Norway, 2017. The registration period was 1 year at the DH and 4 months at the UH.
participants201 children at the DH (mean age 3.8: SD 5.1) and 137 children at the UH (mean age 2.0: SD 5.9) were treated with systemic antibiotics by a paediatrician in the study period and included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome variables were prescriptions of antibiotics, treatments with antibiotics, rates of BSA, median doses and adherence rate to national guidelines.
resultsIn total, 744 prescriptions of antibiotics were given at the UH and 638 at the DH. Total adherence rate to guidelines was 75% at the UH and 69% at the DH (p=0.244). The rate of treatments involving BSA did not differ significantly between the hospitals (p=0.263). Use of BSA was related to treatment of central nervous system (CNS) infections, patients with underlying medical conditions or targeted microbiological treatment in 92% and 86% of the treatments, at the UH and DH, respectively (p=0.217). A larger proportion of the children at the DH were treated for respiratory tract infections (p<0.01) compared with the UH. Children at the UH were treated with higher doses of ampicillin and cefotaxime (p<0.05) compared with the DH.
conclusionOur results indicate that Norwegian paediatricians have a common understanding of main aspects in rational antibiotic use independently of working in a UH or DH. Variations in treatment of respiratory tract infections and in doses of antibiotics should be further studied.
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.