ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Ocular Antibiotic Utilisation across Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmic dispensing patterns in New Zealand: a ten-year review.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Ocular Antibiotic Use in Young Danish Children From 2016 to 2024.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Paediatric Utilisation of Ophthalmic Antibiotics in the Ear in Aotearoa/New Zealand.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Analysis of the Use of Topical Ocular Anti-Infectives in Galicia (Spain) between 2020 and 2023.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Ocular antibiotics are integral to the prevention and treatment of bacterial ocular infections. This study aimed to describe their utilisation across New Zealand according to patient and healthcare factors. Every subsidy-eligible community dispensing of ocular chloramphenicol, fusidic acid and ciprofloxacin in New Zealand, between 2010 and 2019, was included in this analysis. Number of dispensings/1000 population/year was quantified, stratified by patient age and urban/non-urban health districts. Dispensing rates by ethnicity were determined and were age adjusted. The proportion of dispensings by socioeconomic deprivation quintile was also determined. Chloramphenicol was the most commonly dispensed antibiotic; however, its utilisation decreased over time. Ciprofloxacin use was higher in children, while chloramphenicol use was higher in older patients. Ciprofloxacin usage was higher among Māori and Pasifika ethnicities, while fusidic acid use was lower. Chloramphenicol usage was higher among Pasifika. Antibiotic utilisation was higher in urban health districts, and in the most deprived quintile; both were most marked with ciprofloxacin. The utilisation of publicly funded ocular antibiotics across New Zealand varied between patient subgroups. These findings will help improve the prevention, management and outcomes of bacterial ocular infections, and support wider initiatives in antibiotic stewardship and medicine access equity.
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.