ArticleBMJ open2022
Quantifying antibiotic use in typhoid fever in India: a cross-sectional analysis of private sector medical audit data, 2013-2015.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Burden of antimicrobial resistance in culture-confirmed Salmonella Typhi isolates in India from 1977 to 2024: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in First-Line Treatments for Sexually Transmitted Infections: Implications for U.S. Public Health Preparedness.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial susceptibility trends of S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi in a post-COVID-19 pandemic India, from a multicenter surveillance network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Assessment and Efficiency of Cefixime in Upper Respiratory Tract Infections: Insights and Perspectives.Cureus · 2024Review
- What Should We Be Recommending for the Treatment of Enteric Fever?Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the antibiotic prescription rates for typhoid in India.
designCross-sectional study.
settingPrivate sector primary care clinicians in India.
participantsThe data came from prescriptions of a panel of 4600 private sector primary care clinicians selected through a multistage stratified random sampling accounting for the region, specialty type and patient turnover. The data had 671 million prescriptions for antibiotics extracted from the IQVIA database for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean annual antibiotic prescription rates; sex-specific and age-specific prescription rates; distribution of antibiotic class.
resultsThere were 8.98 million antibiotic prescriptions per year for typhoid, accounting for 714 prescriptions per 100 000 population. Children 10-19 years of age represented 18.6% of the total burden in the country in absolute numbers, 20-29 year age group had the highest age-specific rate, and males had a higher average rate (844/100 000) compared with females (627/100 000). Ten different antibiotics accounted for 72.4% of all prescriptions. Cefixime-ofloxacin combination was the preferred drug of choice for typhoid across all regions except the south. Combination antibiotics are the preferred choice of prescribers for adult patients, while cephalosporins are the preferred choice for children and young age. Quinolones were prescribed as monotherapy in 23.0% of cases.
conclusionsNationally representative private sector antibiotic prescription data during 2013-2015 indicate a higher disease burden of typhoid in India than previously estimated. The total prescription rate shows a declining trend. Young adult patients account for close to one-third of the cases and children less than 10 years account for more than a million cases annually.
Indexed as
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.