ArticleThe European journal of general practice2024
Appropriateness of intended antibiotic prescribing using clinical case vignettes in primary care, and related factors.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2024. 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.
- Effect of a Feedback Visit and a Clinical Decision Support System Based on Antibiotic Prescription Audit in Primary Care: Multiarm Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Computerised decision support system towards informing Lyme borreliosis incidence in France.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- GP or ChatGPT? Ability of large language models (LLMs) to support general practitioners when prescribing antibiotics.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Computerized Decision Support Systems Informing Community-Acquired Pneumonia Surveillance, France, 2017-2023.Emerging infectious diseases · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFactors associated with the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in primary care have been poorly explored. In particular, the impact of computerised decision-support systems (CDSS) remains unknown.
objectivesWe aim at investigating the uptake of CDSS and its association with physician characteristics and professional activity.
methodsSince May 2022, users of a CDSS for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in France have been invited, when registering, to complete three case vignettes assessing clinical situations frequently encountered in general practice and identified as at risk of antibiotic misuse. Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing was defined as the rate of answers in line with the current guidelines, computed by individuals and by specific questions. Physician's characteristics associated with individual appropriate antibiotic prescribing (< 50%, 50-75% and > 75% appropriateness) were identified by multivariate ordinal logistic regression.
resultsIn June 2023, 60,067 physicians had registered on the CDSS. Among the 13,851 physicians who answered all case vignettes, the median individual appropriateness level of antibiotic prescribing was 77.8% [Interquartile range, 66.7%-88.9%], and was < 50% for 1,353 physicians (10%). In the multivariate analysis, physicians' characteristics associated with appropriateness were prior use of the CDSS (OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.56-1.87), being a general practitioner vs. other specialist (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.20-1.49), working in primary care (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27), mentoring students (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21) age (OR = 0.69 per 10 years increase, 95% CI 0.67-0.71).
conclusionIndividual appropriateness for antibiotic prescribing was high among CDSS users, with a higher rate in young general practitioners, previously using the system. CDSS could improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.
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.