Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35913964›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Prevalence of bacterial coinfection and patterns of antibiotics prescribing in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Faisal Salman Alshaikh, Brian Godman, Oula Nawaf Sindi, R Andrew Seaton, Amanj Kurdi

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dynamics of clinicalApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Faisal Salman AlshaikhStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2076-6268
Brian GodmanStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Oula Nawaf SindiStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
R Andrew SeatonQueen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Amanj KurdiStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
University of Strathclyde · GBHawler Medical University · IQHealthcare Improvement Scotland · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence around prevalence of bacterial coinfection and pattern of antibiotic use in COVID-19 is controversial although high prevalence rates of bacterial coinfection have been reported in previous similar global viral respiratory pandemics. Early data on the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 indicates conflicting low and high prevalence of antibiotic prescribing which challenges antimicrobial stewardship programmes and increases risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

aimTo determine current prevalence of bacterial coinfection and antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients. DATA SOURCE: OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, Cochrane and MedRxiv between January 2020 and June 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: English language studies of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients which reported (a) prevalence of bacterial coinfection and/or (b) prevalence of antibiotic prescribing with no restrictions to study designs or healthcare setting.

participantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) with RT-PCR confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, regardless of study setting.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. Proportion (prevalence) data was pooled using random effects meta-analysis approach; and stratified based on region and study design.

resultsA total of 1058 studies were screened, of which 22, hospital-based studies were eligible, compromising 76,176 of COVID-19 patients. Pooled estimates for the prevalence of bacterial co-infection and antibiotic use were 5.62% (95% CI 2.26-10.31) and 61.77% (CI 50.95-70.90), respectively. Sub-group analysis by region demonstrated that bacterial co-infection was more prevalent in North American studies (7.89%, 95% CI 3.30-14.18).

conclusionPrevalence of bacterial coinfection in COVID-19 is low, yet prevalence of antibiotic prescribing is high, indicating the need for targeted COVID-19 antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the global threat of AMR.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsCoinfectionCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaHumansPrevalenceAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID35913964
PMCPMC9342726
OpenAlexW4289262064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.