Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31738811›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Implementation and evaluation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in companion animal clinics: A stepped-wedge design intervention study.

Nonke E M Hopman, Lützen Portengen, Marlies E J L Hulscher, Dick J J Heederik, T J M Verheij, Jaap A Wagenaar, Jan M Prins, Tjerk Bosje, Louska Schipper, Ingeborg M van Geijlswijk and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nonke E M HopmanDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Lützen PortengenInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marlies E J L HulscherScientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Dick J J HeederikInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
T J M VerheijJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jaap A WagenaarDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan M PrinsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tjerk BosjeMedical Center for Animals, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Louska SchipperInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ingeborg M van GeijlswijkInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1306-8605
Els M BroensDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1312-6115
Utrecht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo curb increasing resistance rates, responsible antimicrobial use (AMU) is needed, both in human and veterinary medicine. In human healthcare, antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) have been implemented worldwide to improve appropriate AMU. No ASPs have been developed for and implemented in companion animal clinics yet.

objectivesThe objective of the present study was to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of an ASP in 44 Dutch companion animal clinics. The objectives of the ASP were to increase awareness on AMU, to decrease total AMU whenever possible and to shift AMU towards 1st choice antimicrobials, according to Dutch guidelines on veterinary AMU.

methodsThe study was designed as a prospective, stepped-wedge, intervention study, which was performed from March 2016 until March 2018. The multifaceted intervention was developed using previous qualitative and quantitative research on current prescribing behaviour in Dutch companion animal clinics. The number of Defined Daily Doses for Animal (DDDAs) per clinic (total, 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice AMU) was used to quantify systemic AMU. Monthly AMU data were described using a mixed effect time series model with auto-regression. The effect of the ASP was modelled using a step function and a change in the (linear) time trend.

resultsA statistically significant decrease of 15% (7%-22%) in total AMU, 15% (5%-24%) in 1st choice AMU and 26% (17%-34%) in 2nd choice AMU was attributed to participation in the ASP, on top of the already ongoing time trends. Use of 3rd choice AMs did not significantly decrease by participation in the ASP. The change in total AMU became more prominent over time, with a 16% (4%-26%) decrease in (linear) time trend per year.

conclusionsThis study shows that, although AMU in Dutch companion animal clinics was already decreasing and changing, AMU could be further optimised by participation in an antimicrobial stewardship programme.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipHospitals, AnimalAnimalsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHumansNetherlandsProspective StudiesAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID31738811
PMCPMC6860428
OpenAlexW2987016701

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.