Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Room for improvement: a systematic review of the quality of evaluations of interventions to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing

Ramsay, Craig, Brown, Erwin, Hartman, Giles, Davey, Peter·2003·Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In 1999, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) and Hospital Infection Society (HIS) convened a working party on optimization of antibiotic prescribing in hospitals. This study was undertaken in order to evaluate the current evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions to change antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. METHODS: We have systematically reviewed the literature from 1980 to identify interventions that alone, or in combination, are effective in improving antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. The protocol was peer reviewed and has been published by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group of the Cochrane Collaboration (www.update-software.com/cochrane/). RESULTS: We identified 306 papers, of which 91 (30%) met the minimum inclusion criteria for a Cochrane EPOC review. The reasons for exclusion were uncontrolled before and after design (141/306; 46%) and inadequate interrupted time series (74/306; 24%) with fewer than three observations before and after the intervention. Most of the rejected interrupted time series (ITS) studies had only one or two data points before the intervention with many (up to 15) after it. Only 15 (40%) of the 38 included ITS studies had a statistical analysis and 11 of these used inappropriate statistical tests (e.g. t-test of pre- and post-intervention mean data) rather than analysis of time trends. Regression analysis of the proportion of included studies by year of publication did show a significant positive correlation (R2 = 0.7886). Nonetheless, of 47 papers published since 2000, only 19 (40%) met the minimum eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of evaluations used fundamentally flawed methodology. There is limited evidence of improvement over time. These problems could be resolved if researchers and referees of protocols or manuscripts implemented the EPOC methodology.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/jac/dkg460

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Ramsay, C., Brown, E., Hartman, G., & Davey, P.
Venue
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Published
2003-11
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
764-771
ISSN
  • 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2091
OpenAlex
W2160307009
Cited by
158
References
1
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Room for improvement: a systematic review of the quality of evaluations of interventions to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkg460
The paper
Ramsay, C., Brown, E., Hartman, G., & Davey, P. (2003). Room for improvement: a systematic review of the quality of evaluations of interventions to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkg460

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.