Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40444029›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Global trends in inappropriate use of antibiotics, 2000-2021: scoping review and prevalence estimates.

Ranya Mulchandani, Katie Tiseo, Arindam Nandi, Eili Klein, Sumanth Gandra, Ramanan Laxminarayan, Thomas Van Boeckel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. New microbes and new infections · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Climate change and antimicrobial resistance.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Increased Prevalence of Multidrug-ResistantLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ranya MulchandaniHealth Geography and Policy Group, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-1060
Katie TiseoHealth Geography and Policy Group, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0002-3652-6859
Arindam NandiPopulation Council, New York, New York, USA.
Eili KleinOne Health Trust, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Sumanth GandraDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ramanan LaxminarayanOne Health Trust India, Bengaluru, India.
Thomas Van BoeckelHealth Geography and Policy Group, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6556-0952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Inappropriate antibiotic use is a major driver of antimicrobial resistance. However, the scope of literature and its prevalence across world regions remain largely unknown, as do the most common indicators and study designs used. In this study, we summarised the current literature on inappropriate use of antibiotics by world regions. We also provided the first global estimates of the overall amount of antibiotics that are potentially used inappropriately each year. Methods: We considered both patient and provider-mediated inappropriate antibiotic use. We reviewed 412 studies published between 2000 and 2021 and used beta regression and marginal contrasts to compare prevalence of inappropriate use by study design, indicator, world region, and national income level. Country-level sales of antibiotics from 2022 were combined with inappropriate antibiotic use estimates derived from two study designs (clinical audits and patient interviews) and one indicator (lack of indication) to estimate the amount of antibiotics inappropriately used globally. Results: Clinical audits (50.1%, 208/412) and 'non-prescription' use (37.1%, 153/412) were the most common study design and indicator, respectively, used to estimate inappropriate antibiotic use. Inappropriate antibiotic use prevalence was ~6% higher in low-income and middle-income than in high-income countries. However, this difference disappeared after accounting for a proxy of access to care: physicians per capita. Globally, based on clinical audits, patient interviews and lack of indication, the estimated proportion of inappropriate antibiotic use was 29.5%, 36.5% and 30.8%, respectively, with an average of ~30% (~13 000 000 kg) the equivalent of the annual antibiotic consumption in China. Conclusions: Inappropriate antibiotic use is highly prevalent across all countries regardless of national income level, with a third of global antibiotic consumption potentially due to unnecessary prescription ('lack of indication'). Antibiotic stewardship efforts and defining internationally standardised indicators are needed to track progress in reducing the occurrence of inappropriate antibiotic use where necessary, as well as identifying gaps in access to care.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsPopulation SurveillancePrevalencePublic HealthScoping Review

Identifiers

PMID40444029
PMCPMC12121568

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.