ReviewPloS one2023
Investigation of oral macrolide prescriptions in Japan using a retrospective claims database, 2013-2018.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiotoxicity of macrolide antibiotics: a pharmacovigilance study integrating FAERS and JADER databases.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Reporting macrolide-resistantJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Ten-Year Trends in First- and Second-LineJuntendo medical journal · 2026Article
- Rethinking the WHO AWaRe classification: the need for more detailed guidance.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Serotype distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macrolide usage in Japan exceeds that in Europe and the United States. Investigating the actual conditions in which macrolides are used is important for identifying further interventions for appropriate antimicrobial use; however, this situation has not been evaluated in Japan. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the number of macrolide prescriptions and their changes before and after implementation of the Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Action Plan. In addition, we also investigated the names of diseases for which macrolides have been prescribed and the number of days of prescription. A retrospective observational study was conducted using JMDC claims data from January 2013 to December 2018. The proportion of all oral antimicrobials and macrolides used during this period and the diseases for which macrolides were used in the 3 years before and after the AMR Action Plan were determined separately for acute (< 14 prescription days) and chronic (> 14 prescription days) diseases. The number of prescriptions for macrolides constituted approximately 30% of those for all oral antimicrobials; of these, clarithromycin accounted for approximately 60%. Most prescriptions for acute diseases were for common cold, whereas allergic and dermatological diseases were included among chronic diseases. The names of these illnesses did not change before and after the AMR Action Plan. Overall, these results indicate that appropriate macrolide use involves a review of their use for common cold along with appropriate evaluation of their long-term use for skin and allergic diseases. They also indicate the need for further fact-finding studies and ongoing AMR measures.
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.