Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924627›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Effectiveness of interventions targeting antibiotic use in long-term aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Magdalena Z Raban, Claudia Gasparini, Ling Li, Melissa T Baysari, Johanna I Westbrook

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A practice guide on antimicrobial stewardship in nursing homes.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Feasibility of a Nursing Home Antibiotic Stewardship Intervention.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Magdalena Z RabanFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia magda.raban@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-2849
Claudia GaspariniFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ling LiFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Melissa T BaysariFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-9126
Johanna I WestbrookFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere are high levels of inappropriate antibiotic use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Our objective was to examine evidence of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce antibiotic use and/or inappropriate use in LTCFs.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL from 1997 until November 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Controlled and uncontrolled studies in LTCFs measuring intervention effects on rates of overall antibiotic use and/or appropriateness of use were included. Secondary outcomes were intervention implementation barriers from process evaluations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group's resources to classify interventions and assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses used random effects models to pool results.

resultsOf include studies (n=19), 10 had a control group and 17 had a high risk of bias. All interventions had multiple components. Eight studies (with high risk of bias) showed positive impacts on outcomes and included one of the following interventions: audit and feedback, introduction of care pathways or an infectious disease team. Meta-analyses on change in the percentage of residents on antibiotics (pooled relative risk (RR) (three studies, 6862 residents): 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.18), appropriateness of decision to treat with antibiotics (pooled RR (three studies, 993 antibiotic orders): 1.10, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.91) and appropriateness of antibiotic selection for respiratory tract infections (pooled RR (three studies, 292 orders): 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40), showed no significant intervention effects. However, meta-analyses only included results from intervention groups since most studies lacked a control group. Insufficient data prevented meta-analysis on other outcomes. Process evaluations (n=7) noted poor intervention adoption, low physician engagement and high staff turnover as barriers.

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that interventions employed to date are effective at improving antibiotic use in LTCFs. Future studies should use rigorous study designs and tailor intervention implementation to the setting.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agentsanti-bacterial agentsantimicrobial stewardshipmeta-analysisnursing homesquality in health careresidential facilities

Identifiers

PMID31924627
PMCPMC6955563

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.