ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Rational use of antibiotics at primary & secondary healthcare facilities in district Panchkula, Haryana, North India: A cross-sectional study.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Antimicrobial prescriptions by doctors are crucial in managing acute illnesses but contribute significantly to antimicrobial resistance if misused. This study aimed to assess the rational use of antibiotics in outpatient public healthcare settings in Panchkula, Haryana. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted across 18 primary and two secondary healthcare facilities in the district of Panchkula, Haryana. Antimicrobial prescriptions (n=945) were assessed for comprehensiveness and rationality using the pretested and validated antimicrobial prescription assessment tool and standard treatment guidelines. World Health Organisation's anatomic therapeutic chemical and defined daily dose index (WHOCC-ATC/DDD) was used to calculate defined daily dose (DDD) for adult prescriptions, and days of therapy (DOT) were calculated for paediatric patients. We used descriptive statistics to summarise the findings and chi-square test to compare the proportions of rational and irrational prescriptions. Results Of 945 antibiotic prescriptions, only 0.4 per cent (n=4) of prescriptions were comprehensive. Among prescriptions eligible for rationality assessment (n=647, 68.5%) antibiotic therapy was indicated in 44 per cent (n=285), of which only 3.5 per cent (n=33) were rational, 20.2 per cent (n=191) moderately rational and 76.3 per cent irrational (n=721). Irrational prescriptions were most common in respiratory (n=415, 95%), gastrointestinal (n=105, 92.9%), and dermatological (n=21, 76%) ailments. The completeness of the prescriptions was low, with information on dosage of antibiotics (n=265, 28%), laboratory investigations (n=331, 35%), diagnosis (n=94, 10%), and co-morbidities (n=96, 10%). The prescribed antibiotic doses exceeded the WHO-DDD recommendations, with irrational prescribing significantly higher among paediatric prescriptions (89.6%) as compared with adult prescriptions (74.3%; adjusted odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.7, P<0.001). Interpretation & conclusions Antibiotic prescriptions in primary and secondary care outpatient departments demonstrated widespread irrationality, highlighting the importance of implementing a comprehensive antimicrobial stewardship programme in these settings.
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.