ArticleInfection and drug resistance2026
Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Utilization in Three Regional Referral Hospitals in Uganda: A Prospective Multicentre Study.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated Ceftriaxone use in Regional Referral Hospitals (RRHs) in Uganda against treatment guidelines, identified drivers of irrational use, and provided evidence-based recommendations to inform a future framework for improving Ceftriaxone utilization. Methods: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study in three RRHs. Quantitative data on Ceftriaxone use were collected using structured questionnaires from 753 inpatients, while key informant interviews explored factors influencing inappropriate use and mitigation strategies in place. Quantitative data were summarized using proportions, means, and standard deviations. Logistic regression analyses (univariate and multivariate) were conducted to determine factors associated with appropriate dosing, frequency, combination therapy, and prescribing. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis to identify emerging themes. Results: Overall, appropriate Ceftriaxone use was 68.5% (516/753). Ceftriaxone was mostly prescribed for surgical prophylaxis (41%), as 2 g doses (65.7%), once daily (97.7%), for 5 days (53%). Complete blood count was the most performed test (70.4%); culture and sensitivity testing was only 1%. Appropriate use was associated with the admission ward (surgical; AOR=4.55, p<0.0001), and the hospital; Lacor RRH (AOR=2.4, p=0.016), and Hoima RRH (AOR=2.6, p=0.002). Staying in hospital >7 days reduced odds of appropriate use (AOR=0.5, p=0.047). Drivers of inappropriate use included lack of prescription restrictions, non-adherence to guidelines, inadequate supervision, poor drug administration, stockouts, heavy workloads, and limited prescriber knowledge. Conclusion: Ceftriaxone was appropriately used in 68.5% of cases across three RRHs, indicating suboptimal adherence to national guidelines. A national framework should include prescription restrictions, strengthened culture and sensitivity capacity, and antimicrobial stewardship training for all prescribers.
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.