Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31530595›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Use of antimicrobial dressings in England and the association with published clinical guidance: interrupted time series analysis.

Louise Hussey, Susan J Stocks, Paul Wilson, Jo C Dumville, Nicky Cullum

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louise HusseyDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK louise.hussey@manchester.ac.uk.
Susan J StocksDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paul WilsonNIHR CLAHRC Greater Manchester, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2657-5780
Jo C DumvilleDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nicky CullumDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn healthcare systems, practices and products of unproven value and cost-effectiveness can decrease value and increase waste. Using the management of complex wounds, this study investigates temporal trends in the use of antimicrobials dressings, places this in the context of available evidence and discusses the potential impacts on the UK National Health Service (NHS).

designSecondary descriptive and interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of NHS prescription data.

settingPrescribing Cost Analysis (PCA) details all NHS prescriptions dispensed in the community in England.

interventionsAn ITS design was used to compare annual changes in the expenditure and use of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial dressings before and after the publication of the 'intervention' of key evidence-based Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidance in 2010. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in use and expenditure of antimicrobial dressings in relation to published clinical guidance.

resultsThere was a large increase in the prescribing of, and expenditure on, antimicrobial wound dressings between 1997 and 2016. In 1997, the total number of dressings prescribed was 5 792 700; increasing to 11 447 102 in 2009 with expenditure increasing from £1 960 386 to £32 841 263. During the year of the SIGN intervention (2010), there was a significant drop in the use of silver but there was no consistent ongoing reduction from 2011 to 2015.

conclusionsPrescribing data can be used to identify products of unproven benefit, which also impose a significant financial burden. This study quantifies the huge increase in the use of antimicrobial wound dressings over a 20-year period despite the lack of compelling evidence to support their routine use. There is some suggestion, however that the use and expenditure decreased after the publication of key guidance. Routine data can be used to as part of more systematic efforts to increase value and reduce waste in health systems.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsBandagesEnglandHealth ExpendituresHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisPractice Guidelines as TopicState MedicineWound HealingAnti-Infective Agentsantimicrobial dressingsde-implementationevidence-based medicineinterrupted time series analysiswound healing

Identifiers

PMID31530595
PMCPMC6756320
OpenAlexW2973422124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.