Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33754632›Full record

Trial reportClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

Population-Wide Peer Comparison Audit and Feedback to Reduce Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long-Term Care Facilities with Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Nick Daneman, Samantha M Lee, Heming Bai, Chaim M Bell, Susan E Bronskill, Michael A Campitelli, Gail Dobell, Longdi Fu, Gary Garber, Noah Ivers and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03807466 (Feedback to Improve Rational Strategies of Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long Term), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT03807466 nacompletednot on this map

Feedback to Improve Rational Strategies of Antibiotic Initiation and Duration in Long Term

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesRan2017 to 2021Enrolled356ConditionsAntibiotic Initiation, Antibiotic DurationArmsDynamic/Interactive vs. Static/Paginated Report, LTC Physicians Enrolled vs. Not Enrolled in Reports
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities: Past interventions and implementation challenges.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2022
    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

19 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Nick DanemanSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Samantha M LeeInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heming BaiOntario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chaim M BellInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Susan E BronskillSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael A CampitelliInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gail DobellOntario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Longdi FuInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gary GarberPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Noah IversInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jonathan M C LamOntario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bradley J LangfordPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Celia LaurWomen's College Hospital Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew MorrisDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cara MulhallOntario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ruxandra PintoSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Farah E SaxenaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kevin L SchwartzPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kevin A BrownPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAPublic Health Ontario · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CAOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto · CAWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR 378064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic overprescribing in long-term care settings is driven by prescriber preferences and is associated with preventable harms for residents. We aimed to determine whether peer comparison audit and feedback reporting for physicians reduces antibiotic overprescribing among residents.

methodsWe employed a province wide, difference-in-differences study of antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback, with an embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) across all long-term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, in 2019. The study year included 1238 physicians caring for 96 185 residents. In total, 895 (72%) physicians received no feedback; 343 (28%) were enrolled to receive audit and feedback and randomized 1:1 to static or dynamic reports. The primary outcomes were proportion of residents initiated on an antibiotic and proportion of antibiotics prolonged beyond 7 days per quarter.

resultsAmong all residents, between the first quarter of 2018 and last quarter of 2019, there were temporal declines in antibiotic initiation (28.4% to 21.3%) and prolonged duration (34.4% to 29.0%). Difference-in-differences analysis confirmed that feedback was associated with a greater decline in prolonged antibiotics (adjusted difference -2.65%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.93 to -.28%, P = .026), but there was no significant difference in antibiotic initiation. The reduction in antibiotic durations was associated with 335 912 fewer days of treatment. The embedded RCT detected no differences in outcomes between the dynamic and static reports.

conclusionsPeer comparison audit and feedback is a pragmatic intervention that can generate small relative reductions in the use of antibiotics for prolonged durations that translate to large reductions in antibiotic days of treatment across populations. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03807466.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsLong-Term CareFeedbackHumansOntarioPractice Patterns, Physicians'Skilled Nursing FacilitiesAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic stewardshipaudit and feedbacklong-term carepeer comparisonrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID33754632
PMCPMC8442778
OpenAlexW3137278670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.