ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2020
Interventions to improve the review of antibiotic therapy in acute care hospitals: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Criteria to achieve safe antimicrobial intravenous-to-oral switch in hospitalised adult populations: a systematic rapid review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Development of National Antimicrobial Intravenous-to-Oral Switch Criteria and Decision Aid.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesize current evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to ensure the timely review of antibiotics in acute care hospitals.
methodsFive databases were searched from 1 January 2015 to 8 March 2019 for studies in English, focused on the timely review of antibiotics in acute care hospitals. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, case-control and cohort study designs were eligible. Intervention strategies were categorized according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy of health interventions, then mapped to the intervention functions of the behaviour change wheel.
resultsFourteen studies were included. Most studies (11 out of 14) were conducted in single sites. Nine out of 14 reported intervention delivery by more than one healthcare professional. Physicians were the main targets of interventions in all studies. Thirteen out of 14 studies tested interventions comprising more than one strategy. The three most commonly utilized strategies within interventions were clinical practice guidelines, audit and feedback, and educational materials. Only one study employed theory in intervention evaluation. Reported interventions led to timely review and switch of IV antibiotic therapy, and shortened durations of overall antibiotic therapy.
conclusionsInterventions to improve the review of antibiotics were found to be effective in the short to medium term, with limited evidence of long-term sustainability in multiple sites. Future research may benefit from the application of theory to intervention design and detailed specifications of interventions to aid their easy replication and implementation in different contexts.
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.