Cited by 1,068Antibiotic Use and ResistanceHealthcare cost, quality, practicesSurgical site infection prevention

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

Open access
Davey, Peter, Marwick, Charis A, Scott, Claire L, Charani, Esmita, McNeil, Kirsty, Brown, Erwin, Gould, Ian M, Ramsay, Craig R +1 more·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 1 Dichotomous outcomes, increase in desired practice. . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 1.2.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 2 Dichotomous outcomes, all RCTs with results of cluster RCTs adjusted by inflation factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 1.3.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 3 Dichotomous outcomes, low or medium 'Risk of bias' studies only. . . . . . .Analysis 1.4.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 4 Continuous outcomes, duration of all antibiotic treatment (days). . . . . . .Analysis 1.5.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 5 Continuous outcomes, duration of all antibiotic treatment with results of cluster RCTs adjusted by inflation factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 1.6.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 6 Continuous outcomes, low or medium 'Risk of bias' studies only. . . . . . . .Analysis 1.7.Comparison 1 Effectiveness: Prescribing outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 7 Continuous outcome, consumption of targeted antibiotic only, standardised mean reduction (original outcome cost, days or DDD). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.1.Comparison 2 Adverse effects: Clinical outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 1 Mortality, all RCTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Analysis 2.2.Comparison 2 Adverse effects: Clinical outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 2 Mortality, all RCTs with results of cluster RCTs adjusted by inflation factor. . . . . . .Analysis 2.3.Comparison 2 Adverse effects: Clinical outcomes from RCTs of interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, Outcome 3 Mortality, low or medium 'Risk of bias' RCTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients (Review)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003543.pub4

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Where AMS has been implemented in surgery, its focus remains on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and prevention of surgical site infection.

    “Where interventions such as AMS have been implemented in surgery, their focus remains on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).10,11”

    From Rationalizing irrational prescribing—infection-related attitudes and practices across paediatric surgery specialties in a hospital in South India (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Event Description section reports that 11 included studies targeted surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, supporting that part of the claim. The review also discusses surgical-site infection as an outcome, but it does not establish that preventing it remains the focus of surgical stewardship interventions generally; the ITS studies section describes a prophylaxis change intended to reduce the risk of CDI instead. Page numbers are not available for these passages in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. review.ti. 46 (rat or rats or cow or cows or chicken? or horse or horses or mice or mouse or bovine or animal?).ti. 47 exp animals/ not humans.sh. 48 (animal$ not human$).sh,hw.
  2. pre-workshop or post-workshop or (before adj3 workshop) or workshop)).ti,ab.
  3. random$.ti,ab. or controlled.ti. 24 review.ti. 25 or/12-23 26 25 not 24 27 11 and 26 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 1 2015 (Searched 22 January 2015) #

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davey, P., Marwick, C. A., Scott, C. L., Charani, E., McNeil, K., Brown, E., Gould, I. M., Ramsay, C. R., & Michie, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • NHS Education for Scotland (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • No affiliation; 31 Park Crescent Frenchay Bristol UK BS16 1NZ
  • Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-09
Volume
2017
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W4294236078
Cited by
1,068
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 161 · 2019: 121 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 59 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (13/89/04)
  • Imperial College London
  • Public Health England
  • Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
  • NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
Keywords
antibiotic prescribing, hospitalized patients, unnecessary antibiotic use, antimicrobial stewardship, prescribing interventions, antibiotic duration, mortality, risk of bias, cost-effectiveness, appropriateness of prescribing, appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review