ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2021
Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in the high-burden emergency department of a tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial prescribing quality in Australian emergency departments: an analysis of the Hospital NAPS data set.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Emergency medicine pharmacists' interventions in the tertiary hospitals' emergency departments in Malaysia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Impact evaluation of guidelines on antibiotic utilisation & appropriateness in Malaysian public primary care: an interrupted time series analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- The Interventions and Challenges of Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Emergency Department.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in the emergency department (ED) is a challenge due to diagnostic uncertainty, time pressure, and clinical inertia. Objective To assess the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in the ED. Setting This study was conducted in the inpatient ED of a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Method We conducted a 6-month retrospective antimicrobial prescriptions analysis among ED patients who received intravenous antimicrobial. Antimicrobial prescriptions of conveniently selected adult patients were evaluated with the medication appropriateness index. Main outcome measure Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing was the primary outcome measure. Results We analysed 310 patients with 326 antimicrobial prescriptions. Ceftriaxone (41.1%, n = 134) and amoxicillin-clavulanate (36.5%, n = 119) were the most common antimicrobials prescribed. Respiratory infections (71.5%, n = 233) was the main indication for antimicrobial therapy in the ED. All antimicrobials prescribed were indicated as per the Malaysian antimicrobial guidelines. The overall rate of inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing was 53.1% (n = 173). Thirty-two (9.8%) antimicrobials were prescribed with inappropriate doses; the majority was related to beta-lactam/beta-lactamase dose (p = 0.002). One hundred and forty-three (43.9%) antimicrobials prescribed had alternatives with similar efficacy but were less costly; which referring to ceftriaxone usage (p < 0.001). Conclusions The inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in the emergency department is prevalent. This emphasises the importance of conducting antimicrobial stewardship initiative in the ED to improve the appropriate dosing of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors as well as the judicious use of ceftriaxone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33677792What 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.