ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2021
Current antimicrobial prescription at outpatient dentistry centers and clinics in tertiary-care hospitals in Tokyo, Japan: A multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial administration is necessary before specific dental procedures to prevent postprocedural infections and complications and antimicrobials are sometimes indicated for the treatment of odontogenic infections. However, antimicrobials are commonly misused by dentists. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at 4 public, tertiary-care hospitals in Tokyo, Japan, from June to July 2019. We included patients who received an antimicrobial prescription at the outpatient dentistry center or clinic at each participating hospital. The indications for antimicrobial prescription were (1) antimicrobial prescriptions for prophylaxis (APPs) or (2) antimicrobial prescriptions for treatment (APTs). Prescribing patterns were described in terms of antimicrobial choice, timing, and dosages for APPs and APTs. Results: During the study period, 1,772 patients received an antimicrobial prescription. Among them 1,439 (81.2%) were APPs and 333 (18.8%) were APTs. The most common aim of APP was to prevent local infections and complications following tooth extraction (n = 1,244, 86.4%). The proportion of appropriate APPs was only 0.8% (12 of 1,439). Among 1,439 total APPs, 171 (11.9%) were unnecessary, 32 (2.2%) were inappropriate, and 1,224 (85.1%) were suboptimal. Whereas 101 (30.3%) of 333 APTs were appropriate, the remaining 97 instances (29.1%) were unnecessary, 86 (26.7%) were inappropriate, and 46 (13.8%) were suboptimal. Conclusion: Inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions were common among dentists in Japan. Understanding the differences in the current antimicrobial prescribing patterns for prophylaxis and treatment is critically important for implementing an effective antimicrobial stewardship program in dentistry.
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.