SynthesisBMJ open2025
Effects of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection on future consultations in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Danish GP trainees' experiences of navigating patient expectations for non-indicated procedures or tests: a qualitative interview study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrescribing antibiotics may reinforce patients' beliefs that antibiotics are needed and increase future consultations for similar symptoms. This review determines the effect of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care on future reattendance.
designA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Participants were adults or children presenting with respiratory infection in primary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinical trial registries and grey literature sources were searched from inception until 6 February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies included open-label RCTs or cohort studies of antibiotics compared with no antibiotics in adults or children with respiratory infections. The outcome of interest was reattendance at least 28 days after the initial consultation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened, selected, assessed the quality and extracted data. Separate meta-analyses were presented for RCT and cohort studies and a combined meta-analysis of all studies.
resultsWe identified 2128 records and reviewed 48 full texts, of which five met the inclusion criteria. These reported three RCTs (1207 randomised to antibiotics, 672 controls) and three cohort studies (209 138 exposed to antibiotics, 46 469 controls). In the meta-analysis of RCTs, relative risk (RR) of reattendance with antibiotics was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.23), and in cohort studies, RR was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.49). An important limitation is that most studies were in UK primary care.
conclusionEvidence suggests prescribing antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care probably modestly increases future reattendance for similar conditions. Reducing antibiotic prescribing may help decrease demand for primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023470731.
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.