Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36789177›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2023

Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing results for urine cultures: feasibility and acceptability by general practitioners and laboratory professionals in France.

Gaëlle Le Dref, Maïa Simon, Aurélie Bocquier, Sébastien Fougnot, Joëlle Kivits, Alain Duda, Céline Pulcini, Nathalie Thilly, ANTIBIO-ciblés Scientific Committee‡

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Primary care practitioners' experiences managing urinary tract infections: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Gaëlle Le DrefEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
Maïa SimonEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
Aurélie BocquierEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
Sébastien FougnotLaboratoire ATOUTBIO, unité de microbiologie, Nancy F-54000, France.
Joëlle KivitsEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
Alain DudaLaboratoire ATOUTBIO, unité de microbiologie, Nancy F-54000, France.
Céline PulciniEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
Nathalie ThillyEA 4360 APEMAC, Université de Lorraine, Nancy F-54000, France.
ANTIBIO-ciblés Scientific Committee‡

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is a recommended antibiotic stewardship strategy, aiming at reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Objectives: Our objectives were to evaluate (i) the feasibility of the implementation of selective reporting of AST for urine cultures for laboratory professionals; and (ii) its acceptability by prescribers and laboratory professionals, to explore facilitators and barriers to its potential implementation on a national scale. Methods: As part of the 'ANTIBIO-ciblés' interventional study (north-eastern France, August 2018-December 2019), we prospectively collected quantitative data on all resources dedicated by the laboratories of the intervention group to implement selective reporting of AST for Results: The implementation of selective reporting of AST required around 80 h and cost 23 000 euros. All interviewed professionals were favourable toward the principle of this tool. Most of them found it clear, simple and useful to improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions and reduce antibiotic resistance. Its major constraint was the necessity for GPs to call the laboratory to obtain the complete reporting of AST, but the number of requests was actually low (1.2% of all selective reporting of AST). Conclusions: Selective reporting of AST resulted in reasonable human and financial costs, and was well accepted by both GPs and laboratory professionals.

Identifiers

PMID36789177
PMCPMC9922568

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.