Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36180895›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2022

Non-prescribed antibiotic use for children at community levels in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dumessa Edessa, Nega Assefa, Yadeta Dessie, Fekede Asefa, Girmaye Dinsa, Lemessa Oljira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

6 authors.

Dumessa EdessaSchool of Pharmacy, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia. jaarraa444@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6558-5829
Nega AssefaSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Yadeta DessieSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Fekede AsefaSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Girmaye DinsaSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Lemessa OljiraSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-prescribed antibiotic use is an emerging risky practice around the globe. An inappropriate use involving nonprescription access is one cause of the rapid increase in antibiotic resistance. Children commonly encounter many self-limiting illnesses for which they frequently use antibiotics without prescription. However, no specific and conclusive evidence exists to inform actions against this unsafe practice. We thus aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of non-prescribed antibiotic use for children at community levels in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsA systematic search of records was conducted from PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google scholar. Eligible English-language publications were original articles which reported on community-based non-prescribed antibiotic use for children and conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Study features and the number of antibiotics used without prescriptions were extracted and pooled for effect sizes employing a random-effects model. The pooled proportion of non-prescribed antibiotic use was estimated as a percentage.

resultsIn this analysis, we included a total of 39 articles consisting of 40,450 participants. Of these, 16,315 participants used non-prescribed antibiotics. The pooled percentage for this use of non-prescribed antibiotics was 45% (95% CI: 40-50%). The estimate was considerably higher in studies involving simulated patient methods (56%; 95% CI: 49-62%) than those studies with community surveys (40%; 95% CI: 34-46%) (P = 0.001). It was also varied by the recall period of antibiotics use-56% (95% CI: 50-62%) for instantly observed practice, 36% (95% CI: 22-50%) for within two week recall, 35% (95% CI: 26-45%) for 1-6 months recall, and 46% (95% CI: 37-54%) for more than six months recall (P = 0.001). Primary access points for the non-prescribed antibiotic uses were retail drug outlets.

conclusionsWe found that nearly half of the antibiotics used for children in community settings were without prescriptions. For these unsafe practices, caregivers accessed antibiotics mainly from drug outlets. Hence, context-specific educational and regulatory interventions at these outlets and the community levels are the first steps to improving antibiotic usage for children in low- and middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021288971 (PROSPERO).  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021288971 .

Indexed as

Antibiotic useChildrenCommunity-levelLow- and middle-income countriesNon-prescribed

Identifiers

PMID36180895
PMCPMC9524137

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.