Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32004317›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2020

Evaluation of a clinical decision rule to guide antibiotic prescription in children with suspected lower respiratory tract infection in The Netherlands: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

Josephine S van de Maat, Daphne Peeters, Daan Nieboer, Anne-Marie van Wermeskerken, Frank J Smit, Jeroen G Noordzij, Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, Gertjan J A Driessen, Charlie C Obihara, Jeanine Punt and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Josephine S van de MaatDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7351-4596
Daphne PeetersDepartment of Paediatrics, HAGA-Juliana Children's Hospital, Den Haag, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3110-9434
Daan NieboerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4403-6537
Anne-Marie van WermeskerkenDepartment of Paediatrics, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands.
Frank J SmitDepartment of Paediatrics, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4152-8624
Jeroen G NoordzijDepartment of Paediatrics, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0076-8568
Gerdien Tramper-StrandersDepartment of Paediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gertjan J A DriessenDepartment of Paediatrics, HAGA-Juliana Children's Hospital, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Charlie C ObiharaDepartment of Paediatrics, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Jeanine PuntDepartment of Paediatrics, LangeLand Ziekenhuis, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Johan van der LeiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henriette A MollDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9304-3322
Rianne OostenbrinkDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7919-8934
Erasmus MC · NLErasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLFlevoziekenhuis · NLLange Land Ziekenhuis · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLReinier de Graaf Hospital · NLSint Franciscus Gasthuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimising the use of antibiotics is a key component of antibiotic stewardship. Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for antibiotic prescription in children, even though most of these infections in children under 5 years are viral. This study aims to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions in children under 5 years with suspected lower RTI at the emergency department (ED), by implementing a clinical decision rule. METHODS AND

findingsIn a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, we included children aged 1-60 months presenting with fever and cough or dyspnoea to 8 EDs in The Netherlands. The EDs were of varying sizes, from diverse geographic and demographic regions, and of different hospital types (tertiary versus general). In the pre-intervention phase, children received usual care, according to the Dutch and NICE guidelines for febrile children. During the intervention phase, a validated clinical prediction model (Feverkidstool) including clinical characteristics and C-reactive protein (CRP) was implemented as a decision rule guiding antibiotic prescription. The intervention was that antibiotics were withheld in children with a low or intermediate predicted risk of bacterial pneumonia (≤10%, based on Feverkidstool). Co-primary outcomes were antibiotic prescription rate and strategy failure. Strategy failure was defined as secondary antibiotic prescriptions or hospitalisations, persistence of fever or oxygen dependency up to day 7, or complications. Hospitals were randomly allocated to 1 sequence of treatment each, using computer randomisation. The trial could not be blinded. We used multilevel logistic regression to estimate the effect of the intervention, clustered by hospital and adjusted for time period, age, sex, season, ill appearance, and fever duration; predicted risk was included in exploratory analysis. We included 999 children (61% male, median age 17 months [IQR 9 to 30]) between 1 January 2016 and 30 September 2018: 597 during the pre-intervention phase and 402 during the intervention phase. Most children (77%) were referred by a general practitioner, and half of children were hospitalised. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that overall antibiotic prescription was not reduced (30% to 25%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.57 to 2.01, p = 0.75]); strategy failure reduced from 23% to 16% (aOR 0.53 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.88, p = 0.01]). Exploratory analyses showed that the intervention influenced risk groups differently (p < 0.01), resulting in a reduction in antibiotic prescriptions in low/intermediate-risk children (17% to 6%; aOR 0.31 [95% CI 0.12 to 0.81, p = 0.02]) and a non-significant increase in the high-risk group (47% to 59%; aOR 2.28 [95% CI 0.84 to 6.17, p = 0.09]). Two complications occurred during the trial: 1 admission to the intensive care unit during follow-up and 1 pleural empyema at day 10 (both unrelated to the study intervention). Main limitations of the study were missing CRP values in the pre-intervention phase and a prolonged baseline period due to logistical issues, potentially affecting the power of our study.

conclusionsIn this multicentre ED study, we observed that a clinical decision rule for childhood pneumonia did not reduce overall antibiotic prescription, but that it was non-inferior to usual care. Exploratory analyses showed fewer strategy failures and that fewer antibiotics were prescribed in low/intermediate-risk children, suggesting improved targeting of antibiotics by the decision rule.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR5326.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipChild, PreschoolCluster AnalysisDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansInfantMaleNetherlandsRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32004317
PMCPMC6993966
OpenAlexW3004036142

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.