ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
The decision-making process in general practice of when to use antibiotics to treat acute rhinosinusitis.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Danish primary care sector is responsible for the majority of antibiotic prescriptions, with upper respiratory tract infections, particularly acute rhinosinusitis (ARS), being a key contributor. This study explored the decision-making process regarding antibiotic use for ARS among general practitioners (GPs) and doctors in training working in general practice.
methodsNine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 doctors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using systematic text condensation.
resultsFour key themes were developed: (1) 'It all starts before the consultation': staff-led triage shaping ARS care, (2) two diagnostic worlds: experienced intuition vs. rule-bound caution, (3) C-reactive protein (CRP) in the crossfire: guide, reassurance or irrelevant in antibiotic decision-making and (4) 'Sometimes it's a negotiation': managing patient expectations without losing stewardship. Although diagnosing ARS was often straightforward, distinguishing bacterial from viral infections proved difficult. C-reactive protein testing was common, but its reliability was questioned. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by patient history, comorbidities and risk factors. While antibiotics were rarely considered necessary initially, patient expectations and doctor-patient relationships sometimes influenced prescribing.
conclusionsThis study illustrates the complexity of diagnosing and managing ARS, shaped by clinical uncertainty, competing priorities and non-clinical pressures. Variation in doctor involvement, diagnostic practices and CRP thresholds reveals the challenges of standardization. Training, guidelines and patient education are valued but may not ensure optimal antibiotic use. Diagnostic decisions are relational, negotiated and context-specific, influenced by public health concerns, patient needs and workflow demands. Without acknowledging this complexity, antibiotic stewardship efforts could potentially fall short.
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.