Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35112381›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics.

Maarten Lambert, Chloé C H Smit, Stijn De Vos, Ria Benko, Carl Llor, W John Paget, Kathryn Briant, Lisa Pont, Liset Van Dijk, Katja Taxis

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Utilisation of antibiotics in a community pharmacy: A case from north-west, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Maarten LambertFaculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4958-9920
Chloé C H SmitGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3037-5837
Stijn De VosFaculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ria BenkoDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical Center, Central Pharmacy and Emergency Care Department, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Carl LlorUniversity Institute in Primary Care Research Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.
W John PagetNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Nivel, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kathryn BriantHealth Care Consumers' Association, Hackett, Australia.
Lisa PontGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Liset Van DijkFaculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Katja TaxisFaculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLUniversity of Technology Sydney · AUNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NLUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Szeged · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and identify which interventions are most effective.

methodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist-led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the 'Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria' and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted.

resultsSeventeen studies were included covering in total 3822 patients (mean age 45.6 years, 61.9% female). Most studies used educational interventions. Three studies reported on primary outcomes, 12 on secondary outcomes and two on both. Three studies reported improvements in quality of dispensing, interventions led to more intensive symptom assessment (up to 30% more advice given) and a reduction of over-the-counter supply up to 53%. Three studies led to higher consumer satisfaction, effects on adherence from nine studies were mixed (risk difference 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]). All studies had unclear or high risks of bias across at least one domain, with large heterogeneity between studies.

conclusionsOur review suggests some positive results from pharmacist-led interventions, but the interventions do not seem sufficiently effective as currently implemented. This review should be interpreted as exploratory research, as more high-quality research is needed.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacistsAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial Agentsadherenceantibioticsdrug utilisationquality use of medicines

Identifiers

PMID35112381
PMCPMC9313811
OpenAlexW4210422500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.