ArticleJournal of pediatrics. Clinical practice2024
Increasing Safety Net Antibiotic Prescriptions for Acute Otitis Media in Urgent Care Clinics.
Article in Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice, 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.
- Antibiotic treatment of acute otitis media: has watchful waiting gone with the diagnosis?CJEM · 2026Article
- Interventions to Minimize Unnecessary Antibiotic Use for Acute Otitis Media: A Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in improving the use of safety net antibiotic prescriptions (SNAPs) for nonsevere acute otitis media (AOM). Study design: We used quality improvement methodology to develop iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to increase the use of SNAP for nonsevere AOM in 3 pediatric urgent care centers from October 2021 to June 2023. Interventions included education, electronic health record changes, audits and feedback, and a time-limited financial incentive. We measured the percentage of eligible patients with AOM offered SNAP as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcome measured the percentage of SNAPs accepted. Our process measure evaluated the percent of SNAP eligibility documentation. Our balancing measure evaluated the percent of return visits for AOM within 14 days of initial diagnosis. We used control charts to evaluate special cause variation. Results: We reviewed 29 316 encounters. SNAP eligibility rates ranged from 27.6% to 45.5% over time. The percentage of eligible patients offered SNAP had 2 center line shifts, increasing from 7.2% to 49.7% as the rate of SNAP eligibility documentation had similar center line shifts increasing from 5.7% to 52.7%. There was no change in the rate of return visits for AOM of 4.3%. The number of SNAPs accepted each month had a center line shift increasing from a mean of 20 to 139. Conclusions: The offering of SNAPs to patients with nonsevere AOM increased as clinician documentation of SNAP eligibility increased. This strategy could be implemented broadly to improve antibiotic stewardship.
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.