ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Empiric treatment and probability estimates before and after a decision support system intervention in a sore throat setting: a scenario-based survey study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance poses challenges for physicians, who must balance individual patient care and public health when prescribing antibiotics. Machine learning-based computerized decision support systems (ML-CDSS) are increasingly proposed to aid in this challenge. We aimed to assess physicians' decision-making in a common bacterial vs. viral infection scenario, and the impact of an ML-CDSS on it.
methodsWe administered an online scenario-based survey to physicians (N = 211), mainly pediatricians (67.8%). The estimated response rate was 33-40%. Each participant encountered four sore throat scenarios, corresponding to one of four McIsaac scores. Participants estimated the probabilities of bacterial infections and determined treatment strategies. This sequence occurred both before and after simulated hypothetical ML-CDSS interventions, in the form of a probability of bacterial infection output.
resultsThe average probability estimates of bacterial infection under the four McIsaac scenarios were monotonically increasing: (1) 25.6% (95% CI 22.8-28.4%), (2) 43.8% (40.6-46.7%), (3) 65.1% (62.2-67.0%), and (4) 69.1% (66.3-71.8%). Furthermore, empiric treatment was generally overprescribed: (1) 11.4% (2) 38.4% (3) 65.8% (4) 73.0%. These estimates and treatment percentages are higher than expected given the relevant scientific literature. The interventions had substantial effects on probability estimates and empiric prescription; e.g. reducing average estimates by up to 14% points and lowering odds of antibiotic prescription by a factor 0.42.
conclusionsOverestimation of bacterial infections and subsequent antibiotic overprescription are common, particularly under conditions of clinical uncertainty. These tendencies can be mitigated through ML-CDSS interventions, as demonstrated in a scenario-based survey setting. Our findings provide initial support for the design of ML-CDSS tools and their integration into primary care, pending further validation in clinical trials. Additionally, they support policy initiatives aimed at clarifying default clinical actions in situations of diagnostic uncertainty. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable.
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.