Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32991591›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Use of stewardship smartphone applications by physicians and prescribing of antimicrobials in hospitals: A systematic review.

R I Helou, D E Foudraine, G Catho, A Peyravi Latif, N J Verkaik, A Verbon

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07347015 (Impact Evaluation of a Prescription Search Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07347015 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Impact Evaluation of a Prescription Search Support (PSS) for Antimicrobials Using a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Design in Belgian Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2025 to 2027Enrolled48ConditionsInfectious DiseasesArmsPrescription Support System (PSS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Stewardship in your pocket: launching Colorado's free antimicrobial mobile application.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

R I HelouDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0448-6349
D E FoudraineDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
G CathoDivision of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4948-0944
A Peyravi LatifDepartment of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
N J VerkaikDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
A VerbonDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs promote appropriate use of antimicrobials and reduce antimicrobial resistance. Technological developments have resulted in smartphone applications (apps) facilitating AMS. Yet, their impact is unclear.

objectivesSystematically review AMS apps and their impact on prescribing by physicians treating in-hospital patients. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies focusing on smartphone or tablet apps and antimicrobial therapy published from January 2008 until February 28th 2019 were included.

participantsPhysicians treating in-hospital patients.

interventionsAMS apps.

methodsSystematic review.

resultsThirteen studies met the eligibility criteria. None was a randomized controlled trial. Methodological study quality was considered low to moderate in all but three qualitative studies. The primary outcomes were process indicators, adherence to guidelines and user experience. Guidelines were more frequently accessed by app (53.0% - 89.6%) than by desktop in three studies. Adherence to guidelines increased (6.5% - 74.0%) significantly for several indications after app implementation in four studies. Most users considered app use easy (77.4%->90.0%) and useful (71.0%->90%) in three studies and preferred it over guideline access by web viewer or booklet in two studies. However, some physicians regarded app use adjacent to colleagues or patients unprofessional in three qualitative studies. Susceptibility to several antimicrobials changed significantly post-intervention (from 5% decrease to 10% - 14% increase) in one study.

conclusionsUse of AMS apps seems to promote access to and knowledge of antimicrobial prescribing policy, and increase adherence to guidelines in hospitals. However, this has been assessed in a limited number of studies and for specific indications. Good quality studies are necessary to properly assess the impact of AMS apps on antimicrobial prescribing. To improve adherence to antimicrobial guidelines, use of AMS apps could be considered.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipGuideline AdherenceHospitalsHumansPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Anti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID32991591
PMCPMC7523951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.