Cited by 26Antibiotic Use and ResistanceSurgical site infection preventionHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Understanding antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing in pediatric surgical specialties

Open access
Malone, Sara M., Seigel, Natalie S., Newland, Jason G., Saito, Jacqueline M., McKay, Virginia R.·2020·Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overuse of antibiotics has caused secondary poor outcomes and has led to a current rate of antibiotic resistant infections that constitutes a public health crisis. In pediatric surgical specialties, children continue to receive unnecessary antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: To understand the factors that contribute to pediatric surgeons' decisions regarding the use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: Focus groups included pediatric proceduralists/surgeons from the following specialties: interventional cardiology, otolaryngology, orthopedic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, and general surgery. RESULTS: A total of 23 surgeons with a median of 9 years of experience (range, 0.5-29 years) participated in the focus groups that lasted 30-90 minutes each. Five themes emerged influencing beliefs about antibiotic prescribing practices: (1) reliance on previous experience and early education, (2) balancing antibiotic use with risk of infection, (3) uncertainty about the state of the scientific evidence, (4) understanding importance of communication and team collaboration, and (5) a prevalence of hospital-level concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons describe a complex set of factors that impact their antibiotic prescribing in pediatric surgical cases. They reported initial, but not ongoing, training and a use of individual weight of risk and benefit as a major dictator of prescribing practices. Antimicrobial stewardship programs should work with surgeons to develop acceptable implementation strategies to optimize antibiotic prescribing.

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 · 10.1017/ice.2020.71

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Studies in LMICs focus on surgical prophylaxis, overlooking the extent of post-operative empirical antibiotic use.

    “The studies in LMICs focus on surgical prophylaxis,17–20 overlooking the extent of post-operative empirical antibiotic use.”

    From Rationalizing irrational prescribing—infection-related attitudes and practices across paediatric surgery specialties in a hospital in South India (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Methods describe focus groups about antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing among pediatric surgeons, so the paper supports the citation’s identification of a prophylaxis-focused study. But the Methods place the study at a children’s hospital with approval from Washington University in St Louis, not in an LMIC; the paper also does not assess whether LMIC studies overlook postoperative empirical antibiotic use. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malone, S. M., Seigel, N. S., Newland, J. G., Saito, J. M., & McKay, V. R.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Malone, Sara M.
Venue
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
Published
2020-04-07
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
666-671
ISSN
  • 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-6834
OpenAlex
W3014258309
Cited by
26
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002345)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS026742)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
antibiotic prophylaxis, pediatric surgery, antibiotic overuse, antimicrobial resistance, risk-benefit decision-making, antimicrobial stewardship, surgical training, team collaboration
MeSH terms
Antimicrobial Stewardship, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Child, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Specialties, Surgical, Focus Groups, Antibiotic Prophylaxis

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