Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31702804›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Appropriateness of Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Practices in Australia.

Courtney Ierano, Karin Thursky, Caroline Marshall, Sonia Koning, Rod James, Sandra Johnson, Nabeel Imam, Leon J Worth, Trisha Peel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Courtney IeranoNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Karin ThurskyNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Caroline MarshallNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Sonia KoningNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Rod JamesNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
Sandra JohnsonVictorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System, Melbourne, Australia.
Nabeel ImamVictorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System, Melbourne, Australia.
Leon J WorthUniversity of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Trisha PeelNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a common indication for antibiotic use in hospitals and is associated with high rates of inappropriateness. Objective: To describe the SAP prescribing practices and assess hospital, surgical, and patient factors associated with appropriate SAP prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, national, quality improvement study with retrospective analysis of data collected from Australian hospitals via Surgical National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey audits from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Crude estimates of appropriateness were adjusted for factors included in the model by calculating estimated marginal means and presented as adjusted-appropriateness with 95% confidence intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted appropriateness and factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions. Results: A total of 9351 surgical episodes and 15 395 prescriptions (10 740 procedural and 4655 postprocedural) were analyzed. Crude appropriateness of total prescriptions was 48.7% (7492 prescriptions). The adjusted appropriateness of each surgical procedure group was low for procedural SAP, ranging from 33.7% (95% CI, 26.3%-41.2%) for dentoalveolar surgery to 68.9% (95% CI, 63.2%-74.5%) for neurosurgery. The adjusted appropriateness of postprocedural prescriptions was also low, ranging from 21.5% (95% CI, 13.4%-29.7%) for breast surgery to 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-69.4%) for ophthalmological procedures. The most common reason for inappropriate procedural SAP was incorrect timing (44.9%), while duration greater than 24 hours was the most common reason for inappropriate postprocedural SAP (54.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of inappropriate procedural and postprocedural antimicrobial use were demonstrated across all surgical specialties. Reasons for inappropriateness, such as timing and duration, varied according to the type of SAP and surgical specialty. These findings highlight the need for improvement in SAP prescribing and suggest potential targeted areas for action.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisAustraliaGuideline AdherenceHumansLogistic ModelsQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31702804
PMCPMC6902799

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.