ArticleBMJ quality & safety2022
Comparing antibiotic prescribing between clinicians in UK primary care: an analysis in a cohort study of eight different measures of antibiotic prescribing.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence and risk of mortality associated with antimicrobial resistance within nosocomial settings-a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 20,000 patients.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Incidence, antimicrobial prescribing practice, and associated healthcare costs of paediatric otorrhoea in primary care in the UK: a longitudinal population study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Stop antibiotics when you feel better? Opportunities, challenges and research directions.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Review
- Exploring Prior Antibiotic Exposure Characteristics for COVID-19 Hospital Admission Patients: OpenSAFELY.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Antibiotic Prescriptions and Resistance in a University Hospital from Romania.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England: Evaluation and risk prediction of appropriateness of type and repeat prescribing.The Journal of infection · 2023Article
- Clinician acceptability of an antibiotic prescribing knowledge support system for primary care: a mixed-method evaluation of features and context.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Article
- The DynAIRx Project Protocol: Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a need to reduce antimicrobial uses in humans. Previous studies have found variations in antibiotic (AB) prescribing between practices in primary care. This study assessed variability of AB prescribing between clinicians.
methodsClinical Practice Research Datalink, which collects electronic health records in primary care, was used to select anonymised clinicians providing 500+ consultations during 2012-2017. Eight measures of AB prescribing were assessed, such as overall and incidental AB prescribing, repeat AB courses and extent of risk-based prescribing. Poisson regression models with random effect for clinicians were fitted.
results6111 clinicians from 466 general practices were included. Considerable variability between individual clinicians was found for most AB measures. For example, the rate of AB prescribing varied between 77.4 and 350.3 per 1000 consultations; percentage of repeat AB courses within 30 days ranged from 13.1% to 34.3%; predicted patient risk of hospital admission for infection-related complications in those prescribed AB ranged from 0.03% to 0.32% (5th and 95th percentiles). The adjusted relative rate between clinicians in rates of AB prescribing was 5.23. Weak correlation coefficients (<0.5) were found between most AB measures. There was considerable variability in case mix seen by clinicians. The largest potential impact to reduce AB prescribing could be around encouraging risk-based prescribing and addressing repeat issues of ABs. Reduction of repeat AB courses to prescribing habit of median clinician would save 21 813 AB prescriptions per 1000 clinicians per year.
conclusionsThe wide variation seen in all measures of AB prescribing and weak correlation between them suggests that a single AB measure, such as prescribing rate, is not sufficient to underpin the optimisation of AB prescribing.
Indexed as
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.