Can financial rewards for stewardship in primary care curb antibiotic resistance?

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.

1. Antimicrobial use and combination of resistance phenotypes in bacteraemic Escherichia coli in primary care: a study based on Japanese national data in 2018.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024
   Article
2. Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature.PLOS global public health · 2024
   Article
3. Current Promising Strategies against Antibiotic-Resistant Bacterial Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Effect of antibiotic stewardship interventions in primary care on antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli bacteraemia in England (2013-18): a quasi-experimental, ecological, data linkage study.2021

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as