ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2022
A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: Implementation, Process, Impact, and Outcomes, Review of Systematic Reviews.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- International Consensus on a Dental Antibiotic Stewardship Core Outcome Set.International dental journal · 2023Review
- Perspectives of Statistician, Microbiologist, and Clinician Stakeholders on the Use of Microbiological Outcomes in Randomised Trials of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAntimicrobial stewardship interventions (ASIs) aim to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We sought to systematically evaluate how microbiological outcomes have been handled and analysed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ASIs.
methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase from 2011-21. Studies were selected if they were RCTs evaluating ASIs. A narrative synthesis approach was taken, identifying whether the study reported any microbiological data (bacterial genus/species; bacterial colony counts; prevalence of bacterial, microbiologically defined infections; and antibiotic susceptibility, measured pre-randomization or post-randomization in one arm only) or outcomes (post-randomization data compared between arms). Studies with or without microbiological data/outcomes were summarized in terms of study characteristics, methods of reporting and analysis of these outcomes.
resultsWe identified 117 studies, with 34 (29.1%) collecting microbiological data and 18 (15.4%) reporting microbiological outcomes. Most studies with microbiological outcomes were conducted in secondary care (12/18, 66.7%) and targeted adult populations (14/18, 77.8%), and the intervention involved biomarker-guided rapid diagnostic testing (7/18, 38.9%). The overall quality of reporting and analysing microbiological outcomes was low and inconsistent. The selected study population in analyses and methods of handling missing data were unclear.
conclusionsThis review demonstrates that the quality of handling and reporting microbiological outcomes in RCTs of ASIs was low. The lack of consistency and clarity made it difficult to compare the findings across studies, limiting policy- and clinical decision-making. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of guidance for handling microbiological outcomes in RCTs and adopting appropriate methods to evaluate these data carefully.
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.