Cited by 75Antibiotic Use and ResistanceHealthcare cost, quality, practicesClinical practice guidelines implementation

The effect of interventions aiming to optimise the prescription of antibiotics in dental care—a systematic review

Open access
Löffler, Christin, Böhmer, Femke·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abundant evidence in dentistry suggests that antibiotics are prescribed despite the existence of guidelines aiming to reduce the development of antibiotic resistance. This review investigated (1) which type of interventions aiming to optimise prescription of antibiotics exist in dentistry, (2) the effect of these interventions and (3) the specific strengths and limitations of the studies reporting on these interventions. METHOD: Literature search was based on Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials. Studies with one of the two primary outcomes were included: (1) The number of antibiotics prescribed and/or (2) the accuracy of the prescription, commonly measured as a percentage of adherence to local clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies met these inclusion criteria. Five studies reported on the prescription of antibiotics in primary dental care and four studies focused on outpatient dental care. Interventions used in primary dental care included a combination of audit, feedback, education, local consensus, dissemination of guidelines and/or academic detailing. Trials in the outpatient setting made use of expert panel discussions, educational feedback on previous acts of prescribing, the dissemination of guidelines and the establishment of internal guidelines. All studies successfully reduced the number of antibiotics prescribed and/or increased the accuracy of the prescription. However, most studies were confounded by a high risk of selection bias, selective outcome reporting and high variance across study groups. In particular, information relating to study design and methodology was insufficient. Only three studies related the prescriptions to the number of patients treated with antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review was able to offer conclusions which took the limitations of the investigated studies into account. Unfortunately, few studies could be included and many of these studies were confounded by a low quality of scientific reporting and lack of information regarding study methodology. High-quality research with objective and standardised outcome reporting, longer periods of follow-up, rigorous methodology and adequate standard of study reporting is urgently needed.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0188061

Cites

86 of 86 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?

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: 2

  1. [45]Cooley N. The new NICE guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis against infective endocarditis. Pharmaceutical Journal. 2008; 280(7498): 476+ 81..
  2. [54]Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Wiley Online Library; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Löffler, C., & Böhmer, F.
Affiliations
Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Löffler, Christin
  • Böhmer, Femke
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-11-14
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
e0188061
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2768280439
Cited by
75
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
antibiotic prescribing, dental care, antibiotic resistance, guideline adherence, audit and feedback, academic detailing, clinical teaching, guideline dissemination, primary dental care, outpatient dental care, prescribing interventions
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Dental Health Services, Humans, Prescriptions

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