Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37100446›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023

Multi-faceted intervention to improve management of antibiotics for children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (CHICO): efficient cluster randomised controlled trial.

Peter S Blair, Grace Young, Clare Clement, P Dixon, Penny Seume, Jenny Ingram, Jodi Taylor, Christie Cabral, Patricia J Lucas, Elizabeth Beech and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Implementation of the CHIldren with acute COugh (CHICO) intervention to improve antibiotics management: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Peter S BlairCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK p.s.blair@bris.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7832-8087
Grace YoungBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Clare ClementBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
P DixonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Penny SeumeCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jenny IngramCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jodi TaylorBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Christie CabralCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Patricia J LucasSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Elizabeth BeechNHS England and NHS Improvement South West, Bath, UK.
Jeremy HorwoodCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Martin GullifordKing's College London, School of Population and Life Course Sciences London, UKPrimary Care Research Centre, School of Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nick A Francis
Sam CreavinCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Janet A LaneBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Scott BevanBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alastair D HayCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBKing's College London · GBNHS EnglandUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether an easy-to-use multifaceted intervention for children presenting to primary care with respiratory tract infections would reduce antibiotic dispensing, without increasing hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection.

designTwo arm randomised controlled trial clustered by general practice, using routine outcome data, with qualitative and economic evaluations.

settingEnglish primary care practices using the EMIS electronic medical record system.

participantsChildren aged 0-9 years presenting with respiratory tract infection at 294 general practices, before and during the covid-19 pandemic.

interventionElicitation of parental concerns during consultation; a clinician focused prognostic algorithm to identify children at very low, normal, or elevated 30 day risk of hospital admission accompanied by antibiotic prescribing guidance; and a leaflet for carers including safety netting advice.

main outcome measuresRate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics (superiority comparison) and hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) for children aged 0-9 years over 12 months (same age practice list size as denominator).

resultsOf 310 practices needed, 294 (95%) were randomised (144 intervention and 150 controls) representing 5% of all registered 0-9 year olds in England. Of these, 12 (4%) subsequently withdrew (six owing to the pandemic). Median intervention use per practice was 70 (by a median of 9 clinicians). No evidence was found that antibiotic dispensing differed between intervention practices (155 (95% confidence interval 138 to 174) items/year/1000 children) and control practices (157 (140 to 176) items/year/1000 children) (rate ratio 1.011, 95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029; P=0.25). Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested reduced dispensing in intervention practices with fewer prescribing nurses, in single site (compared with multisite) practices, and in practices located in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation, which may warrant future investigation. Pre-specified sensitivity analysis suggested reduced dispensing among older children in the intervention arm (P=0.03). A post hoc sensitivity analysis suggested less dispensing in intervention practices before the pandemic (rate ratio 0.967, 0.946 to 0.989; P=0.003). The rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infections in the intervention practices (13 (95% confidence interval 10 to 18) admissions/1000 children) was non-inferior compared with control practices (15 (12 to 20) admissions/1000 children) (rate ratio 0.952, 0.905 to 1.003).

conclusionsThis multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention for children with respiratory tract infections did not reduce overall antibiotic dispensing or increase respiratory tract infection related hospital admissions. Evidence suggested that in some subgroups and situations (for example, under non-pandemic conditions) the intervention slightly reduced prescribing rates but not in a clinically relevant way.

trial registrationISRCTN11405239ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11405239.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Tract InfectionsAdolescentAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildCoughHumansPandemicsPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID37100446
PMCPMC10131137
OpenAlexW4367049144

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.