Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33690150›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021

Antimicrobial stewardship in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study and interrupted time-series analysis.

Emma Rezel-Potts, Veline L'Esperance, Martin C Gulliford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prevalence and Antibiogram Pattern ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Emma Rezel-PottsSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London; National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London.
Veline L'EsperanceSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London.
Martin C GullifordSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered the context for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.

aimTo assess the effect of the pandemic on antibiotic prescribing, accounting for changes in consultations for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs/UTIs). DESIGN AND

settingPopulation-based cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from January 2017 to September 2020.

methodInterrupted time-series analysis evaluated changes in antibiotic prescribing and RTI/UTI consultations adjusting for age, sex, season, and secular trends. The authors assessed the proportion of COVID-19 episodes associated with antibiotic prescribing.

resultsThere were 253 655 registered patients in 2017 and 232 218 in 2020, with 559 461 antibiotic prescriptions, 216 110 RTI consultations, and 36 402 UTI consultations. Compared with prepandemic months, March 2020 was associated with higher antibiotic prescribing (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.16). Antibiotic prescribing fell below predicted rates between April and August 2020, reaching a minimum in May (ARR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.75). Pandemic months were associated with lower rates of RTI/UTI consultations, particularly in April for RTIs (ARR 0.23; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.25). There were small reductions in the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotic prescribed and no reduction for UTIs. Among 25 889 COVID-19 patients, 2942 (11%) had antibiotics within a COVID-19 episode.

conclusionPandemic months were initially associated with increased antibiotic prescribing, which then fell below expected levels during the national lockdown. Findings are reassuring that antibiotic stewardship priorities have not been neglected because of COVID-19. Research is required into the effects of reduced RTI/UTI consultations on incidence of serious bacterial infections.

Indexed as

COVID-19Interrupted Time Series AnalysisPandemicsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic prescribingantimicrobial stewardshipCOVID-19respiratory tract infectionsSARS-CoV-2urinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID33690150
PMCPMC8049219

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.