ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023
Identification of outcomes reported for hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions using a systematic review of reviews.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Randomized trials of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions aimed to optimize antimicrobial use contribute less to the evidence base due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for these interventions can be a way to address this problem. The first step in developing a COS is to identify and map all outcomes. Objectives: To identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews of hospital AMS interventions. Methods: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews published up until August 2019 of interventions relevant to reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use for inpatient populations in secondary care hospitals. The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2, A (revised) MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. Extracted outcomes were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. A list of overarching (unique) outcomes reflects the outcomes identified within the systematic reviews. Results: Forty-one systematic reviews were included. Thirty-three (81%) systematic reviews were of critically low or low quality. A long list of 1739 verbatim outcomes was identified and categorized under five core areas of COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) taxonomy: 'resources use' (45%), 'physiological/clinical' (27%), 'life impact' (16%), 'death' (8%) and 'adverse events' (4%). A total of 421 conceptually different outcomes were identified and grouped into 196 overarching outcomes. Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in outcomes reported for hospital AMS interventions. Reported outcomes do not cover all domains of the COMET framework and may miss outcomes relevant to patients (e.g. emotional, social functioning, etc.). The included systematic reviews lacked methodological rigour, which warrants further improvements.
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.