Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33390176›Full record

ReviewArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2021

The use of non-prescribed antibiotics; prevalence estimates in low-and-middle-income countries. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Neusa F Torres, Buyisile Chibi, Desmond Kuupiel, Vernon P Solomon, Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson, Lyn E Middleton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Income level and antibiotic misuse: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Non-prescription antibiotics dispensing for common infections using simulated patients.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  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

6 authors.

Neusa F TorresInstituto Superior de Ciências de Saúde (ISCISA), Maputo, Mozambique. torresneusa@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-9971
Buyisile ChibiDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Desmond KuupielDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Vernon P SolomonDiscipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Tivani P Mashamba-ThompsonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Lyn E MiddletonDiscipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global increase in the utilization of non - prescribed antibiotics (NPA), is concerning, with high persistence within the low and middle-income countries (LMICs). With a negative impact on the health of individuals and communities the use of NPA paves the way to the  propagation of superbugs that potentially predisposes to changes in bacterial resistance patterns, antibiotic resistance (AR) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This study aimed at estimating through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of NPA utilisation and describe its primary sources in LMICs.

methodsThe study is a systematic review and meta-analysis which study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017072954). The review used The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.  The studies searched in databases were deemed eligible if reported evidence of practices of self-medication with antibiotics (SMA) and the prevalence of NPA utilisation within adult participants from LMICs, published between 2007 to 2017. The pooled analyses were carried out using Meta XL statistical software. The pooled prevalence was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

resultsThe review included a total of 11 cross-sectional studies, involving 5080 participants and conducted in LMICs from Asia (India, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Yemen), Latin America (Guatemala), Africa (Nigeria). All studies reported existing  practices of SMA, with reported prevalence ranging from 50% to 93,8%. The pooled prevalence of SMA was 78% (95% CI: 65-89%). The main sources of NPA were; pharmacies, family and friends, old prescriptions, home cabinet and leftover antibiotics.

conclusionThis study revealed a high prevalence of utilisation of NPA in the studied LMICs, these were found to be twice as high in women than men and those participants aged between 18 and 40 years old. The review suggests f considering broader qualitative and comprehensive contextuallized research to better understand the nuances of NPA use. These would be benefitial to uncover uncover gray areas, inform decisions, support the (re) design and implementation of multifaceted interventions towards antibiotic stewardship and conservancy in LMICs.

Indexed as

Antibiotic resistanceLMICsMeta-analysisNon-prescribed antibioticsPrevalenceSelf-medicationSources

Identifiers

PMID33390176
PMCPMC7780654

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.