SynthesisPloS one2025
Telemedicine interventions for improving antibiotic stewardship and prescribing: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of a multidisciplinary remote-based hybrid antibiotic stewardship program in critically ill patients during COVID-19 pandemic in Korea: a prospective pilot implementation study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Self-care strategies and interventions to address antimicrobial resistance: evidence review and recommendations for national programs, service providers, caregivers, and self-carers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Antibiotic prescribing trends among Iranian GPs during COVID-19: a longitudinal analysis of antimicrobial resistance risks.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global antibiotic resistance crisis necessitates optimized stewardship programs, with telemedicine emerging as a promising delivery strategy. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions in improving antibiotic stewardship across clinical settings. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched seven databases from January 2010 to July 2024. Two independent reviewers assessed studies using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools, with evidence certainty evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria (10 observational, 8 quasi-experimental, 2 Randomized Controlled Trials [RCTs], 1 mixed-methods), predominantly from the United States (57.0%, n = 12). Among studies reporting antibiotic use outcomes (52.4%, n = 11), 90.9% demonstrated significant reductions ranging from 5.3% to 62.7%, with the highest-quality evidence showing a 28% reduction (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 22-34%). Guideline adherence studies (57.1%, n = 12) showed acceptance rates of 67.7% to 98%, with comparable effectiveness between telemedicine and in-person consultation (79.1% vs 80.4%, p = 0.36). Prescribing rate outcomes (38.1%, n = 8) revealed setting-dependent variations: inpatient implementations demonstrated significant reductions (Relative Risk [RR] 0.68; 95% CI: 0.63-0.75), while outpatient findings showed mixed results. Quality assessment revealed predominantly low risk of bias [ROB] (66.7%, n = 14). These findings suggest that telemedicine effectively improves antibiotic stewardship compared to traditional care models, particularly in hospital settings, while outpatient applications demonstrated variable effectiveness. This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023454663).
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.