Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31438922›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2019

A survey of prescribing practices by general dentists in Australia.

L Teoh, R J Marino, K Stewart, M J McCullough

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Trends of Dispensed Opioids Prescribed by Australian Dentists: 2013-2022.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. How decisions are made: Antibiotic stewardship in dentistry.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Antibiotics in Dentistry: A Narrative Review of the Evidence beyond the Myth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L TeohMelbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, 720 Swanston Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia. leanne.teoh@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9138-813X
R J MarinoMelbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, 720 Swanston Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
K StewartCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
M J McCulloughMelbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, 720 Swanston Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous studies of dental antibiotic prescribing show that overprescribing is a worldwide occurrence. The aim of this study was to assess prescribing practices of general dentists in Australia for antibiotics, analgesics and anxiolytics and to determine the extent to which prescribing is in accordance with current guidelines.

methodsA structured questionnaire was sent to 1468 dentists in Victoria and Queensland in July-August 2018. The questionnaire covered demographics, clinical conditions where dentists prescribe antibiotics, non-clinical factors which influence prescribing, and medicines for anxiolysis and pain relief. Responses were scored using a system based on the current Australian therapeutic guidelines. Logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of independent variables on inappropriate prescribing.

resultsThree hundred eighty-two responses were received. Overall, 55% of overprescribing of antibiotics was detected, with a range of 13-88% on a routine or occasional basis depending on the scenario. Between 16 and 27% of respondents inappropriately preferenced analgesics over anti-inflammatories for dental pain; 46% of those who prescribed anxiolytic medicines did so inappropriately, with varying regimens and choices outside the guidelines. Years of practice was the main demographic factor influencing prescribing, with recent graduates (0-5 years) generally scoring better than their colleagues for antibiotic prescribing (p < 0.05).

conclusionsFuture interventions could be directed towards the appropriate role and use of antibiotics, shortfalls in knowledge and appropriate choices of medicines for pain relief and anxiolysis. Given that the most overprescribing occurred for localised swellings (88%), this area could be focused on in continuing education as well as ensuring it is addressed in undergraduate teaching. Continuing education on the appropriate use of medicines can be targeted at more experienced dentists as well as patients, especially those who expect antibiotics instead of treatment.

trial registrationUniversity of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee; ID: 1750768.1 .

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDentistsPractice Patterns, Dentists'FemaleHumansMaleQueenslandSurveys and QuestionnairesVictoriaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnalgesicsAntibioticsAntimicrobial resistanceAnxiolyticsDental prescribingDental public healthDental surveys

Identifiers

PMID31438922
PMCPMC6704722
OpenAlexW2969342185

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.