Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34356762›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Surveillance of Antibacterial Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic in England, 2020.

Amelia Andrews, Emma L Budd, Aoife Hendrick, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Elizabeth Beech, Susan Hopkins, Sarah Gerver, Berit Muller-Pebody, The Amu Covid-Stakeholder Group

Open access · goldAbstract 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. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia AndrewsHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5995-2207
Emma L BuddHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Aoife HendrickHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Diane Ashiru-OredopeHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-2028
Elizabeth BeechNHS England and NHS Improvement, London SE1 6LH, UK.
Susan HopkinsHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Sarah GerverHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Berit Muller-PebodyHealthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Division, Public Health England, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
The Amu Covid-Stakeholder Group
Public Health England · GBNHS England

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance in a partnership between Public Health England and (i) Imperial College London and (ii) University of Oxford (i) NIHR200876 and (ii) NIHR200915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Changes in antibacterial prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic were anticipated given that the clinical features of severe respiratory infection syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2 mirror bacterial respiratory tract infections. Antibacterial consumption was measured in items/1000 population for primary care and in Defined Daily Doses (DDDs)/1000 admissions for secondary care in England from 2015 to October 2020. Interrupted time-series analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of the pandemic on antibacterial consumption. In the community, the rate of antibacterial items prescribed decreased further in 2020 (by an extra 1.4% per month, 95% CI: -2.3 to -0.5) compared to before COVID-19. In hospitals, the volume of antibacterial use decreased during COVID-19 overall (-12.1% compared to pre-COVID, 95% CI: -19.1 to -4.4), although the rate of usage in hospitals increased steeply in April 2020. Use of antibacterials prescribed for respiratory infections and broad-spectrum antibacterials (predominately 'Watch' antibacterials in hospitals) increased in both settings. Overall volumes of antibacterial use at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic decreased in both primary and secondary settings, although there were increases in the rate of usage in hospitals in April 2020 and in specific antibacterials. This highlights the importance of antimicrobial stewardship during pandemics to ensure appropriate prescribing and avoid negative consequences on patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

antibacterialsantibioticsantimicrobial stewardshipCOVID-19

Identifiers

PMID34356762
PMCPMC8300678
OpenAlexW3182217547

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.