Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962922›Full record

ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2022

Prophylactic Antimicrobial Prescribing in Australian Residential Aged-Care Facilities: Improvement is Required.

Noleen Bennett, Michael J Malloy, Rodney James, Xin Fang, Karin Thursky, Leon J Worth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Noleen BennettNational Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Department of Infectious Diseases, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. Noleen.Bennett@mh.org.au.
Michael J MalloyVictorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, 792 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Rodney JamesNational Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Department of Infectious Diseases, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Xin FangNational Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Department of Infectious Diseases, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Karin ThurskyNational Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Department of Infectious Diseases, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Leon J WorthVictorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, 792 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveInappropriate antimicrobial use can lead to adverse consequences, including antimicrobial resistance. The objective of our study was to describe patterns of prophylactic antimicrobial prescribing in Australian residential aged-care facilities and thereby provide insight into antimicrobial stewardship strategies that might be required.

methodsAnnual point prevalence data submitted by participating residential aged-care facilities as part of the Aged Care National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey between 2016 and 2020 were extracted. All antimicrobials except anti-virals were counted; methenamine hippurate was classified as an antibacterial agent.

resultsThe overall prevalence of residents prescribed one or more prophylactic antimicrobial on the survey day was 3.7% (n = 4643, 95% confidence interval 3.6-3.8). Of all prescribed antimicrobials (n = 15,831), 27.1% (n = 4871) were for prophylactic use. Of these prophylactic antimicrobials, 87.8% were anti-bacterials and 11.4% antifungals; most frequently, cefalexin (28.7%), methenamine hippurate (20.1%) and clotrimazole (8.8%). When compared with prescribing of all antimicrobial agents, prophylactic antimicrobials were less commonly prescribed for pro re nata administration (7.0% vs 20.3%) and more commonly prescribed greater than 6 months (52.9% vs 34.1%). The indication and review or stop date was less frequently documented (67.5% vs 73.8% and 20.9% vs 40.7%, respectively). The most common body system for which a prophylactic antimicrobial was prescribed was the urinary tract (54.3%). Of all urinary tract indications (n = 2575), about two thirds (n = 1681, 65.3%) were for cystitis and 10.6% were for asymptomatic bacteriuria.

conclusionsOur results clearly identified immediate antimicrobial stewardship strategies that aim to improve prophylactic antimicrobial prescribing in Australian residential-aged care facilities are required.

Identifiers

PMID35962922
PMCPMC9712891

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.