Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384919›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2020

Systematic review of patient-oriented interventions to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections.

Sameh Mortazhejri, Patrick Jiho Hong, Ashley M Yu, Brian Younho Hong, Dawn Stacey, R Sacha Bhatia, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Sameh MortazhejriSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. smortazhejri@ohri.ca.
Patrick Jiho HongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Ashley M YuDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Brian Younho HongDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Dawn StaceyClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
R Sacha BhatiaInstitute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotics are prescribed frequently for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) even though most URTIs do not require antibiotics. This over-prescription contributes to antibiotic resistance which is a major health problem globally. As physicians' prescribing behaviour is influenced by patients' expectations, there may be some opportunities to reduce antibiotic prescribing using patient-oriented interventions. We aimed to identify these interventions and to understand which ones are more effective in reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics for URTIs.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, and the Web of Science. We included English language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. Two authors screened the abstract/titles and full texts, extracted data, and assessed study risk of bias. Where pooling was appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effects model. Where pooling of the data was not possible, a narrative synthesis of results was conducted.

resultsWe included 13 studies (one ITS, one cluster RCTs, and eleven RCTs). All interventions could be classified into two major categories: delayed prescriptions (seven studies) and patient/public information and education interventions (six studies). Our meta-analysis of delayed prescription studies observed significant reductions in the use of antibiotics for URTIs (OR = 0.09, CI 0.03 to 0.23; six studies). A subgroup analysis showed that prescriptions that were given at a later time and prescriptions that were given at the index consultation had similar effects. The studies in the patient/public information and education group varied according to their methods of delivery. Since only one or two studies were included for each method, we could not make a definite conclusion on their effectiveness. In general, booklets or pamphlets demonstrated promising effects on antibiotic prescription, if discussed by a practitioner.

conclusionsPatient-oriented interventions (especially delayed prescriptions) may be effective in reducing antibiotic prescription for URTIs. Further research is needed to investigate the costs and feasibility of implementing these interventions as part of routine clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016048007.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsRespiratory Tract InfectionsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHumansResearch DesignAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticDelayed prescriptionMeta-analysisPatient-oriented interventionSystematic reviewUpper respiratory tract infections

Identifiers

PMID32384919
PMCPMC7210679

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.