Cited by 29Antibiotic Use and ResistanceHealthcare cost, quality, practicesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Measuring antibiotic stewardship programmes and initiatives: an umbrella review in primary care medicine and a systematic review of dentistry

Open access
Teoh, Leanne, Sloan, Alastair J, McCullough, Michael J, Thompson, Wendy·2020·Antibiotics

Abstract

Antibiotic stewardship aims to tackle the global problem of drug-resistant infections by promoting the responsible use of antibiotics. Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care and widespread overprescribing has been reported, including 80% in dentistry. This review aimed to identify outcomes measured in studies evaluating antibiotic stewardship across primary healthcare. An umbrella review was undertaken across medicine and a systematic review in dentistry. Systematic searches of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Web of Science were undertaken. Two authors independently selected and quality assessed the included studies (using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for the umbrella review and Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for the systematic review). Metrics used to evaluate antibiotic stewardship programmes and interventions were extracted and categorized. Comparisons between medical and dental settings were made. Searches identified 2355 medical and 2704 dental studies. After screening and quality assessment, ten and five studies, respectively, were included. Three outcomes were identified across both medical and dental studies: All focused on antibiotic usage. Four more outcomes were found only in medical studies: these measured patient outcomes, such as adverse effects. To evaluate antibiotic stewardship programmes and interventions across primary healthcare settings, measures of antibiotic use and patient outcomes are recommended.

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 · 10.3390/antibiotics9090607

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Previous studies of dental ABS interventions have reported only antibiotic use, such as the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and rate of antibiotic use, for example prescriptions per patient treated.

    “Previous studies of dental ABS interventions have reported only antibiotic use, such as the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and rate of antibiotic use, for example prescriptions per patient treated.17”

    From International Consensus on a Dental Antibiotic Stewardship Core Outcome Set (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 3.2.5 (page not specified) reports that dental studies measured antibiotic-use outcomes including quantity and rate, as the claim says. But it also identifies dentists’ confidence and attitudes toward the intervention as a dental outcome, so the studies did not report only antibiotic use. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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: 2

  1. [19]Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist. Oxford, England Available online: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist_2018.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2020)
  2. [54]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2008 Prophylaxis against Infective Endocarditis: Antimicrobial Prophylaxis against Infective Endocarditis in Adults and Children Undergoing Interventional Procedures Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg64/resources/endorsed-resource-antibiotic-prophylaxis-against-infective-endocarditis-6535433773 (accessed on 30 June 2020) 21656971

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teoh, L., Sloan, A. J., McCullough, M. J., & Thompson, W.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Teoh, Leanne
Venue
Antibiotics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-09-16
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
607
ISSN
2079-6382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3086308080
Cited by
29
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Antibiotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (241616)
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 › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
antibiotic stewardship, antibiotic overprescription, antibiotic resistance, primary care, dentistry, antibiotic prescribing, outcome measurement, antibiotic adverse effects

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