ArticlePloS one2019
Diverticular disease management in primary care: How do estimates from community-dispensed antibiotics inform provision of care?
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature regarding diverticular disease of the intestines (DDI) almost entirely concerns hospital-based care; DDI managed in primary care settings is rarely addressed.
aimTo estimate how often DDI is managed in primary care, using antibiotics dispensing data. DESIGN AND
settingHospitalisation records of New Zealand residents aged 30+ years during 2007-2016 were individually linked to databases of community-dispensed oral antibiotics.
methodPatients with an index hospital admission 2007-2016 including a DDI diagnosis (ICD-10-AM = K57) were grouped by acute/non-acute hospitalisation. We compared use of guideline-recommended oral antibiotics for the period 2007-2016 for these people with ten individually-matched non-DDI residents, taking the case's index date. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to estimate rates of antibiotic use.
resultsFrom almost 3.5 million eligible residents, data were extracted for 51,059 index cases (20,880 acute, 30,179 non-acute) and 510,581 matched controls; mean follow-up = 8.9 years. Dispensing rates rose gradually over time among controls, from 47 per 100 person-years (/100py) prior to the index date, to 60/100py after 3 months. In comparison, dispensing was significantly higher for those with DDI: for those with acute DDI, rates were 84/100py prior to the index date, 325/100py near the index date, and 141/100py after 3 months, while for those with non-acute DDI 75/100py, 108/100py and 99/100py respectively. Following an acute DDI admission, community-dispensed antibiotics were dispensed at more than twice the rate of their non-DDI counterparts for years, and were elevated even before the index DDI hospitalisation.
conclusionDDI patients experience high use of antibiotics. Evidence is needed that covers primary-care and informs self-management of recurrent, chronic or persistent DDI.
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.