ArticlePloS one2019
Pharmaceutical companies information and antibiotic prescription patterns: A follow-up study in Spanish primary care.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Does the problem begin at the beginning? Medical students' knowledge and beliefs regarding antibiotics and resistance: a systematic review.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2020Pooled it
- What ethical conflicts do internists in Spain, México and Argentina encounter? An international cross-sectional observational study based on a self-administrated survey.BMC medical ethics · 2024Observational
- Trends, Variation, and Factors Influencing Antibiotic Prescribing: A Longitudinal Study in Primary Care Using a Multilevel Modelling Approach.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
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
objectivesTo assess the impact of sources of drug information on antibiotic prescribing patterns (quantity and quality) among primary care physicians.
methodsWe conducted a cohort study on primary care physicians who were actively engaged in medical practice in 2010 in a region in north-west Spain (Galicia), fulfilling inclusion criteria (n = 2100). As the independent variable, we took the perceived utility of 6 sources of information on antibiotics, as measured by the validated KAAR-11 questionnaire. As dependent variables, we used: (1) a quality indicator (appropriate quality, defined as any case where 6 of the 12 indicators proposed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network [ESAC-Net] were better than the mean values for Spain); and, (2) a quantity indicator (high prescribing), defined as any case where defined daily doses (DDD) per 1 000 inhabitants per day of antibacterials for systemic use were higher than the mean values for Spain. The adjusted odds ratio for a change in the interquartile range (IqOR) for each sources of information on antibiotics was calculated using Generalized Linear Mixed Models.
resultsThe questionnaire response rate was 68%. Greater perceived utility of pharmaceutical sales representatives increases the risk of having high prescribing (1/IqOR = 2.50 [95%CI: 1.63-3.66]) and reduces the probability of having appropriate quality (1/IqOR = 2.28 [95%CI: 1.77-3.01]). Greater perceived utility of clinical guidelines increases the probability of having appropriate quality (1/IqOR = 1.25 [95%CI: 1.02-1.54]) and reduces the probability of high prescribing (1/IqOR = 1.25 [95%CI: 1.02-1.54]).
conclusionsSources of information on antibiotics are an important determinant of the quantity and quality of antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Commercial sources of information influence prescribing negatively, and clinical guidelines are associated with better indicators.
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.