ArticleBMC primary care2025
Routine data registries as a basis to analyse and improve the quality of antimicrobial prescription in primary care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 overuse of antimicrobials is the main driver of the increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Between 80 and 90% of antimicrobial prescriptions originate from primary care. The goals were to establish the quality of prescriptions through combining data from a primary healthcare registry and a national socioeconomic database for novel determinants.
methodsPseudonymized routine healthcare data from 269,547 patients (1,150,252 antimicrobial prescriptions) obtained between 2012 and 2020 from primary care practices (n = 101) in the region The Hague - Leiden were used. These data were linked with individual socioeconomic data from the Statistic Netherlands database to identify determinants of inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing. The quality of prescription was analysed using predefined criteria based on primary care guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify associations with appropriateness.
resultsRespiratory tract infections (RTI) were most commonly associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, with 14.5% RTI prescriptions being inappropriate. For macrolide prescriptions, 77.1% did not correspond with 1st and 2nd guideline choices. Patient characteristics (migration backgrounds, female gender, comorbidities and age) and medium and large primary care practice size, a proxy for continuity of care and consultation time per patient, were associated with poorer guideline adherence.
conclusionsCombined analyses of socioeconomic and routinely collected healthcare data does reveal relevant additional information to answer medical questions in a broader context, such as AMR. Most room for improvement was found for RTIs and macrolides, especially in specific risk groups. Assuring continuity of care and/or providing extended consultation time per patient might be essential elements to establish, before disseminating improvement strategies.
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.