ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Mapping the evidence about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care and managed with antibiotics: a scoping review.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mapping the evidence about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care and managed with antibiotics: a scoping review.BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowing the natural history of acute infections in primary care, defined as the course of a disease over time in the absence of specific therapy or treatment, can inform clinicians' and patients' expectations about illness recovery, but this evidence is fragmented across the literature. This scoping review aimed to map existing research and research gaps relevant to the natural history of acute infections.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL using a 2-phase hierarchical search approach. In Phase A, we focused on identifying systematic reviews synthesising natural history data for eligible infections (acute respiratory, urinary, and skin and soft tissue) and systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness (of RCTs with placebo or no treatment arm, or cohort studies). For infections without existing reviews, in Phase B, we searched for primary studies (placebo-controlled RCTs or cohort studies). Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data (study characteristics, outcome data - e.g., symptom duration, proportion with resolution at various time points).
resultsWe identified 40 systematic reviews, reporting on 45 infections, most commonly (90%) respiratory tract infections. Six (15%) of these aimed to synthesise natural history information. Most reviews reported the proportion of participants with symptom resolution at various time point/s, with 58% providing data on mean symptom duration. Recovery data show the spontaneous resolution of some infections in some people. We found no eligible studies for cellulitis, ecthyma, carbuncle, and erysipelas.
conclusionsOur review has shown that natural history evidence exists for many common acute infections. It can be utilised by clinicians in implementing patient-centred antibiotic stewardship strategies in primary care. Future research should focus on generating natural history evidence for skin and soft tissue infections and urinary tract infections.
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.