ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluating antibiotic use and developing a tool to optimize prescribing in a family-centered HIV clinic in Eswatini.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the appropriateness of prescribing antibiotics among persons with HIV (PWH) in an Urban HIV outpatient clinic in Uganda.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors for Purchasing Antibiotics Without a Prescription Among Patients in Rural South Africa: Implications for Addressing Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic for children and their families in Eswatini, we sought to understand the use of antibiotics and identify specific areas for improvement. We performed a retrospective patient chart review as part of a quality improvement (QI) initiative to assess antimicrobial use before and after implementation of a standardized antimicrobial guide. For each prescribing period, 100 random patient encounters were selected for review if the indication for antibiotics, duration, and dose were consistent with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Two physicians reviewed each encounter using a structured abstraction tool, with a third resolving discrepancies. Results were analyzed using a chi-square test of proportions and a structured survey was performed to assess perceptions of the guide. After the implementation of an antimicrobial guide, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of clinic visits with an antibiotic prescribed (p < 0.001). Incorrect indication for antimicrobial use decreased from 20.4% in the initial period to 10.31% and 10.2% but did not reach significance (p = .0621) in the subsequent periods after implementation. Incorrect dose/duration decreased from 10.47% in the initial period to 7.37% and 3.1% in the subsequent periods, but this was also was not significant (p = 0.139). All prescribers who completed the survey felt that it positively impacted their prescribing. Our study found that an antimicrobial guide reduced and improved the prescription of antimicrobials, demonstrating practical solutions can have a lasting impact on prescribing in low resource settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.