Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 230

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Potential for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in English primary care

Open access
Smieszek, Timo, Pouwels, Koen B, Dolk, F Christiaan K, Smith, David R M, Hopkins, Susan, Sharland, Mike, Hay, Alastair D, Moore, Michael V, Robotham, Julie V·2018·Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract

Objectives: To identify and quantify inappropriate systemic antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England, and ultimately to determine the potential for reduction in prescribing of antibiotics. Methods: Primary care data from 2013-15 recorded in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database were used. Potentially inappropriate prescribing events in the database were identified by: (i) comparing prescribing events against treatment guidelines; (ii) comparing actual proportions of consultations resulting in prescription for a set of conditions with the ideal proportions derived from expert opinion; and (iii) identifying high prescribers and their number of prescriptions above an age- and body-system-specific benchmark. Results: Applying the most conservative assumptions, 8.8% of all systemic antibiotic prescriptions in English primary care were identified as inappropriate, and in the least conservative scenario 23.1% of prescriptions were inappropriate. All practices had non-zero reduction potentials, ranging from 6.4% to 43.5% in the middle scenario. The four conditions that contributed most to inappropriate prescribing were sore throat (23.0% of identified inappropriate prescriptions), cough (22.2%), sinusitis (7.6%) and acute otitis media (5.7%). One-third of all antibiotic prescriptions lacked an informative diagnostic code. Conclusions: This work demonstrates (i) the existence of substantial inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and (ii) poor diagnostic coding in English primary care. All practices (not just the high prescribers) should engage in efforts to improve antimicrobial stewardship. Better diagnostic coding, more precise prescribing guidelines and a deeper understanding of appropriate long-term uses of antibiotics would allow identification of further potential for reductions.

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/dkx500

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 230

Metadata

Authors
Smieszek, T., Pouwels, K. B., Dolk, F. C. K., Smith, D. R. M., Hopkins, S., Sharland, M., Hay, A. D., Moore, M. V., & Robotham, J. V.
Venue
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Published
2018-02-01
Volume
73
Issue
suppl_2
Pages
ii36-ii43
ISSN
  • 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2091
OpenAlex
W2793743329
Cited by
230
References
2
FWCI
15.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Potential for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in English primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkx500
The paper
Smieszek, T., Pouwels, K. B., Dolk, F. C. K., Smith, D. R. M., Hopkins, S., Sharland, M., Hay, A. D., Moore, M. V., & Robotham, J. V. (2018). Potential for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in English primary care. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx500

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.