Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33466263›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Antimicrobial Stewardship: Development and Pilot of an Organisational Peer-to-Peer Review Tool to Improve Service Provision in Line with National Guidance.

Olaolu Oloyede, Emma Cramp, Diane Ashiru-Oredope

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Olaolu OloyedePublic Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Emma CrampPatient Safety, NHS Improvement, London SE1 6LH, UK.
Diane Ashiru-OredopePublic Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-2028

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance continues to be a considerable threat to global public health due to the persistent inappropriate use of antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs are essential in reducing the growth and spread of antibiotic resistance, in an environment which lacks incentives for the development of new antibiotics. Over the years, a variety of resources have been developed to strengthen antimicrobial stewardship. However, the differences in resources available present a challenge for organisations/teams to establish the best resources to utilise for service provision. A peer review tool was formulated using four national documents on AMS and tested through three phases with feedback. A survey method was used to collect feedback on the validity, feasibility, and impact of the AMS peer review tool. Feedback received was positive from the earlier pilots. The tool was found to be useful at identifying areas of good practice and gaps in antimicrobial stewardship across various pilot sites. Feedback suggests the tool is useful for promoting improvements to AMS programs and highlights that the content and features of the tool are appropriate for evaluating stewardship.

Indexed as

AMSantimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial stewardship interventionPDSA cycle

Identifiers

PMID33466263
PMCPMC7824785

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.