Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35388414›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2022

The impact of digital interventions on antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals: a qualitative synthesis of systematic reviews.

Bethany A Van Dort, Jonathan Penm, Angus Ritchie, Melissa T Baysari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Requirements for the rational use of antibiotics based on antibiotic stewardship].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Evolution of technology and disparities in antimicrobial stewardship: a narrative review.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  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

4 authors.

Bethany A Van DortThe University of Sydney, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0052-6400
Jonathan PenmThe University of Sydney, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Angus RitchieHealth Informatics Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Australia.
Melissa T BaysariThe University of Sydney, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-9126

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes in hospitals support optimal antimicrobial use by utilizing strategies such as restriction policies and education. Several systematic reviews on digital interventions supporting AMS have been conducted but they have focused on specific interventions and outcomes.

objectivesTo provide a systematic overview and synthesis of evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring in hospitals.

methodsMultiple databases were searched from 2010 onwards. Review papers were eligible if they included studies that examined the effectiveness of AMS digital interventions in an inpatient hospital setting. Papers were excluded if they were not systematic reviews, were limited to a paediatric setting, or were not in English.

resultsEight systematic reviews were included for data extraction. A large number of digital interventions were evaluated, with a strong focus on clinical decision support. Due to the heterogeneity of the interventions and outcome measures, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The majority of reviews reported that digital interventions reduced antimicrobial use and improved antimicrobial appropriateness. The impact of digital interventions on clinical outcomes was inconsistent.

conclusionsDigital interventions reduce antimicrobial use and improve antimicrobial appropriateness in hospitals, but no firm conclusions can be drawn about the degree to which different types of digital interventions achieve these outcomes. Evaluation of sociotechnical aspects of digital intervention implementation is limited, despite the critical role that user acceptance, uptake and feasibility play in ensuring improvements in AMS are achieved with digital health.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildHospitalsHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID35388414
PMCPMC9244225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.