SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on prescribing rates for urinary tract infections in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and rationaleCurrent research identifies a large proportion of urinary antimicrobial prescribing in aged care as being non-concordant, however, the efficacy of interventions targeted at reducing these prescriptions in aged care remains unclear. This review summarises effective interventions targeting non-concordant urinary antimicrobial prescriptions in aged care.
methodsThis review follows PRISMA reporting guidelines and includes studies published up to June 2024. The search aimed to capture interventional studies and included studies that examined urinary tract infections in the aged care setting. All hospital-based studies and non-interventional studies were excluded. The search was conducted in 6 databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL Ultimate, and AgeLine. All studies were assessed against the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses for effects on urinary prescribing and hospitalisations were conducted on eligible studies and pooled risk ratios were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects modelling.
resultsTwenty studies were included and interventions from four eligible randomised controlled trials were selected for the meta-analysis. The meta-analyses indicate that educational interventions coupled with routine audits were effective at reducing urinary prescribing (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49 - 0.83) and does not increase the risk of hospitalisations (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 - 1.49). The review found that while effective interventions were heterogeneous in design, the majority included a combination of educational material(s) with routine audits and feedback for clinicians. DISCUSSION: Educational interventions coupled with routine audits and feedback are effective at reducing inappropriate urinary prescribing in aged care and do not increase risk of hospitalisation. The synthesis of evidence in this review is limited by the heterogeneity of these tailored interventions and the lack of consistent reporting of changes in prescribing. However, the studies pooled in the meta-analysis can give some confidence in the efficacy and safety of some of these interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review is registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42024569226).
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.