Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37918836›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023

Effects of a multimodal intervention in primary care to reduce second line antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections in women: parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial.

Guido Schmiemann, Alexandra Greser, Andy Maun, Jutta Bleidorn, Angela Schuster, Olga Miljukov, Viktoria Rücker, Anja Klingeberg, Anja Mentzel, Vitalii Minin and 4 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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. [Requirements for the rational use of antibiotics based on antibiotic stewardship].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Guido SchmiemannUniversity of Bremen, Department of Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, Bremen, Germany.
Alexandra GreserUniversity Hospital Wurzburg, Department of General Practice, Wurzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1191-0483
Andy MaunInstitute of General Practice/Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Jutta BleidornUniversity Hospital Jena, Institute of General Practice, Jena, Thuringia, Germany.
Angela SchusterCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Olga MiljukovClinical Trial Centre Wurzburg, University Hospital Wurzburg, Germany.
Viktoria RückerClinical Trial Centre Wurzburg, University Hospital Wurzburg, Germany.
Anja KlingebergRobert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Anja MentzelInstitute of General Practice/Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Vitalii MininInstitute of General Practice/Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Tim EckmannsRobert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph HeintzeCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Peter HeuschmannClinical Trial Centre Wurzburg, University Hospital Wurzburg, Germany.
Ildikó GágyorUniversity Hospital Wurzburg, Department of General Practice, Wurzburg, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DERobert Koch Institute · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEJena University Hospital · DEUniversity of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate whether a multimodal intervention in general practice reduces the proportion of second line antibiotic prescriptions and the overall proportion of antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women.

designParallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial.

settingGeneral practices in five regions in Germany. Data were collected between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022.

participantsGeneral practitioners from 128 randomly assigned practices.

interventionsMultimodal intervention consisting of guideline recommendations for general practitioners and patients, provision of regional data for antibiotic resistance, and quarterly feedback, which included individual first line and second line proportions of antibiotic prescribing, benchmarking with regional or supra-regional practices, and telephone counselling. Participants in the control group received no information on the intervention.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed by general practices, in relation to all antibiotics prescribed, for uncomplicated urinary tract infections after one year between the intervention and control group. General practices were randomly assigned in blocks (1:1), with a block size of four, into the intervention or control group using SAS version 9.4; randomisation was stratified by region. The secondary outcome was the prescription proportion of all antibiotics, relative within all cases (instances of UTI diagnosis), for the treatment of urinary tract infections after one year between the groups. Adverse events were assessed as exploratory outcomes.

results110 practices with full datasets identified 10 323 cases during five quarters (ie, 15 months). The mean proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed was 0.19 (standard deviation 0.20) in the intervention group and 0.35 (0.25) in the control group after 12 months. After adjustment for preintervention proportions, the mean difference was -0.13 (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06, P<0.001). The overall proportion of all antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections over 12 months was 0.74 (standard deviation 0.22) in the intervention and 0.80 (0.15) in the control group with a mean difference of -0.08 (95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02, P<0.029). No differences were noted in the number of complications (ie, pyelonephritis, admission to hospital, or fever) between the groups.

conclusionsThe multimodal intervention in general practice significantly reduced the proportion of second line antibiotics and all antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00020389.

Indexed as

General PracticeRespiratory Tract InfectionsUrinary Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID37918836
PMCPMC10620739
OpenAlexW4388219730

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.