MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298110430 · doi:10.1186/s40545-022-00454-8

Non-prescribed antibiotic use for children at community levels in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4298110430 on OpenAlexaff
Dumessa Edessa, Nega Assefa, Yadeta Dessie, Fekede Asefa, Girmaye Dinsa, Lemessa Oljira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionCINAHLAntibioticsMeta-analysisMEDLINEFamily medicinePediatricsInternal medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-prescribed antibiotic use is an emerging risky practice around the globe. An inappropriate use involving nonprescription access is one cause of the rapid increase in antibiotic resistance. Children commonly encounter many self-limiting illnesses for which they frequently use antibiotics without prescription. However, no specific and conclusive evidence exists to inform actions against this unsafe practice. We thus aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of non-prescribed antibiotic use for children at community levels in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: A systematic search of records was conducted from PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google scholar. Eligible English-language publications were original articles which reported on community-based non-prescribed antibiotic use for children and conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Study features and the number of antibiotics used without prescriptions were extracted and pooled for effect sizes employing a random-effects model. The pooled proportion of non-prescribed antibiotic use was estimated as a percentage. RESULTS: In this analysis, we included a total of 39 articles consisting of 40,450 participants. Of these, 16,315 participants used non-prescribed antibiotics. The pooled percentage for this use of non-prescribed antibiotics was 45% (95% CI: 40-50%). The estimate was considerably higher in studies involving simulated patient methods (56%; 95% CI: 49-62%) than those studies with community surveys (40%; 95% CI: 34-46%) (P = 0.001). It was also varied by the recall period of antibiotics use-56% (95% CI: 50-62%) for instantly observed practice, 36% (95% CI: 22-50%) for within two week recall, 35% (95% CI: 26-45%) for 1-6 months recall, and 46% (95% CI: 37-54%) for more than six months recall (P = 0.001). Primary access points for the non-prescribed antibiotic uses were retail drug outlets. CONCLUSIONS: We found that nearly half of the antibiotics used for children in community settings were without prescriptions. For these unsafe practices, caregivers accessed antibiotics mainly from drug outlets. Hence, context-specific educational and regulatory interventions at these outlets and the community levels are the first steps to improving antibiotic usage for children in low- and middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021288971 (PROSPERO). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021288971 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and PracticeSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207