MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405220050 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciae604

Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4405220050 on OpenAlexafffund
Alice X T Xu, Kevin A. Brown, Kevin L. Schwartz, Soheila Aghlmandi, Sarah Alderson, Benjamin Brown, Heiner C. Bucher, Jan Clarkson, An De Sutter, Nick Francis, Jeremy Grimshaw, Ronny Gunnarsson, Michael Hallsworth, Lars G. Hemkens, Sigurd Høye, Tasneem Khan, Donna M Lecky, Felicia Leung, Morten Lindbæk, Jeffrey A. Linder, Carl Llor, Paul Little, Denise O’Connor, C. Pulcini, Kalisha Ramlackhan, Craig Ramsay, Pär‐Daniel Sundvall, Monica Taljaard, P Touboul, Akke Vellinga, Jan Y. Verbakel, Theo Verheij, Carl Wikberg, Noah Ivers

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingJoint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial ResistanceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskPsychological interventionMeta-analysisMedical prescriptionConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialNumber needed to treatAntibioticsInternal medicineMEDLINECINAHLIntensive care medicinePediatricsPharmacologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care were included in the systematic review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to May 2024. Trial, participant, and intervention characteristics were extracted independently by 2 researchers. Random effects meta-analyses of trials that compared interventions with and without A&F were conducted for 4 outcomes: (1) total antibiotic prescribing volume; (2) unnecessary antibiotic initiation; (3) excessive prescription duration, and (4) broad-spectrum antibiotic selection. A stratified analysis was also performed based on study characteristics and A&F intervention design features for total antibiotic volume. RESULTS: A total of 56 RCTs fit the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A&F was associated with an 11% relative reduction in antibiotic prescribing volume (N = 21 studies, rate ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .84, .95; I2 = 97); 23% relative reduction in unnecessary antibiotic initiation (N = 16 studies, RR = 0.77; 95% CI: .68, .87; I2 = 72); 13% relative reduction in prolonged duration of antibiotic course (N = 4 studies, RR = 0.87 95% CI: .81, .94; I2 = 86); and 17% relative reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic selection (N = 17 studies, RR = 0.83 95% CI: .75, .93; I2 = 96). CONCLUSIONS: A&F interventions reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, heterogeneity was substantial, outcome definitions were not standardized across the trials, and intervention fidelity was not consistently assessed. Clinical Trials Registration. Prospero (CRD42022298297).

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207