Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32544153›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2020

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Giorgia Sulis, Pierrick Adam, Vaidehi Nafade, Genevieve Gore, Benjamin Daniels, Amrita Daftary, Jishnu Das, Sumanth Gandra, Madhukar Pai

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 165 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
16.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

165 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 303 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Burden ofBMJ global health · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

105 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Giorgia SulisDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6641-0094
Pierrick AdamDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2986-4641
Vaidehi NafadeDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Genevieve GoreSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1072-2683
Benjamin DanielsMcCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9652-6653
Amrita DaftaryMcGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2275-3540
Jishnu DasMcCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5909-3585
Sumanth GandraDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Madhukar PaiDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3667-4536
McGill University · CAGeorgetown University · USManipal Academy of Higher Education · INWashington University in St. Louis · USYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that are inappropriate. METHODS AND

findingsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and CENTRAL for articles published between 1 January 2010 and 4 April 2019 without language restrictions. We subsequently updated our search on PubMed only to capture publications up to 11 March 2020. Studies conducted in LMICs (defined as per the World Bank criteria) reporting data on medicine use in primary care were included. Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and abstract, whereas the full-text evaluation of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and quality assessment. A modified version of a tool developed by Hoy and colleagues was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of each included study. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to identify the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) framework was used to classify prescribed antibiotics. We identified 48 studies from 27 LMICs, mostly conducted in the public sector and in urban areas, and predominantly based on medical records abstraction and/or drug prescription audits. The pooled prevalence proportion of antibiotic prescribing was 52% (95% CI: 51%-53%), with a prediction interval of 44%-60%. Individual studies' estimates were consistent across settings. Only 9 studies assessed rationality, and the proportion of inappropriate prescription among patients with various conditions ranged from 8% to 100%. Among 16 studies in 15 countries that reported details on prescribed antibiotics, Access-group antibiotics accounted for more than 60% of the total in 12 countries. The interpretation of pooled estimates is limited by the considerable between-study heterogeneity. Also, most of the available studies suffer from methodological issues and report insufficient details to assess appropriateness of prescription.

conclusionsAntibiotics are highly prescribed in primary care across LMICs. Although a subset of studies reported a high proportion of inappropriate use, the true extent could not be assessed due to methodological limitations. Yet, our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices, starting from the integration of WHO treatment recommendations and the AWaRe classification into national guidelines.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123269.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDeveloping CountriesHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32544153
PMCPMC7297306
OpenAlexW3035568588

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.