ReviewAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Antimicrobial stewardship strategies and programs in the outpatient settings: a scoping review.
Review in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the evidence on antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and strategies implemented in outpatient settings. Design: We conducted a scoping review to describe the evidence published since 2013 on the effects and implementation of outpatient ASP strategies and programs. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from January 1, 2013 through September 3, 2024. Data were summarized in figures and tables. We categorized studies by types of ASP strategies and settings. We also summarize the reported outcomes using the RE-AIM framework. Results: Of 29,544 unique citations/abstracts, 285 primary studies and 37 systematic reviews were eligible. Most included primary studies were observational ( Conclusions: There has been substantial growth in the evidence base, but this is largely from observational studies. Evidence gaps include a need for more controlled studies, and evaluation of additional outcomes. Few studies evaluated implementation costs or barriers, reach, and sustainability. Many of these additional outcomes would provide valuable insights to aid policy makers in the most feasible and appropriate strategies for implementation.
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.