Cargando…

A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial stewardship interventions (ASIs) aim to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We sought to systematically evaluate how microbiological outcomes have been handled and analysed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ASIs. METHODS: We searched PubMed a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lau, Tin Man Mandy, Daniel, Rhian, Hughes, Kathryn, Wootton, Mandy, Hood, Kerry, Gillespie, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8874134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35233529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac013
_version_ 1784657616376430592
author Lau, Tin Man Mandy
Daniel, Rhian
Hughes, Kathryn
Wootton, Mandy
Hood, Kerry
Gillespie, David
author_facet Lau, Tin Man Mandy
Daniel, Rhian
Hughes, Kathryn
Wootton, Mandy
Hood, Kerry
Gillespie, David
author_sort Lau, Tin Man Mandy
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial stewardship interventions (ASIs) aim to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We sought to systematically evaluate how microbiological outcomes have been handled and analysed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ASIs. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase from 2011–21. Studies were selected if they were RCTs evaluating ASIs. A narrative synthesis approach was taken, identifying whether the study reported any microbiological data (bacterial genus/species; bacterial colony counts; prevalence of bacterial, microbiologically defined infections; and antibiotic susceptibility, measured pre-randomization or post-randomization in one arm only) or outcomes (post-randomization data compared between arms). Studies with or without microbiological data/outcomes were summarized in terms of study characteristics, methods of reporting and analysis of these outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 117 studies, with 34 (29.1%) collecting microbiological data and 18 (15.4%) reporting microbiological outcomes. Most studies with microbiological outcomes were conducted in secondary care (12/18, 66.7%) and targeted adult populations (14/18, 77.8%), and the intervention involved biomarker-guided rapid diagnostic testing (7/18, 38.9%). The overall quality of reporting and analysing microbiological outcomes was low and inconsistent. The selected study population in analyses and methods of handling missing data were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that the quality of handling and reporting microbiological outcomes in RCTs of ASIs was low. The lack of consistency and clarity made it difficult to compare the findings across studies, limiting policy- and clinical decision-making. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of guidance for handling microbiological outcomes in RCTs and adopting appropriate methods to evaluate these data carefully.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8874134
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88741342022-02-28 A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021 Lau, Tin Man Mandy Daniel, Rhian Hughes, Kathryn Wootton, Mandy Hood, Kerry Gillespie, David JAC Antimicrob Resist Systematic Review INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial stewardship interventions (ASIs) aim to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. We sought to systematically evaluate how microbiological outcomes have been handled and analysed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ASIs. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase from 2011–21. Studies were selected if they were RCTs evaluating ASIs. A narrative synthesis approach was taken, identifying whether the study reported any microbiological data (bacterial genus/species; bacterial colony counts; prevalence of bacterial, microbiologically defined infections; and antibiotic susceptibility, measured pre-randomization or post-randomization in one arm only) or outcomes (post-randomization data compared between arms). Studies with or without microbiological data/outcomes were summarized in terms of study characteristics, methods of reporting and analysis of these outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 117 studies, with 34 (29.1%) collecting microbiological data and 18 (15.4%) reporting microbiological outcomes. Most studies with microbiological outcomes were conducted in secondary care (12/18, 66.7%) and targeted adult populations (14/18, 77.8%), and the intervention involved biomarker-guided rapid diagnostic testing (7/18, 38.9%). The overall quality of reporting and analysing microbiological outcomes was low and inconsistent. The selected study population in analyses and methods of handling missing data were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that the quality of handling and reporting microbiological outcomes in RCTs of ASIs was low. The lack of consistency and clarity made it difficult to compare the findings across studies, limiting policy- and clinical decision-making. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of guidance for handling microbiological outcomes in RCTs and adopting appropriate methods to evaluate these data carefully. Oxford University Press 2022-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8874134/ /pubmed/35233529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac013 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Lau, Tin Man Mandy
Daniel, Rhian
Hughes, Kathryn
Wootton, Mandy
Hood, Kerry
Gillespie, David
A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title_full A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title_fullStr A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title_short A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
title_sort systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8874134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35233529
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlac013
work_keys_str_mv AT lautinmanmandy asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT danielrhian asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT hugheskathryn asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT woottonmandy asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT hoodkerry asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT gillespiedavid asystematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT lautinmanmandy systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT danielrhian systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT hugheskathryn systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT woottonmandy systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT hoodkerry systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021
AT gillespiedavid systematicreviewinvestigatingtheuseofmicrobiologyoutcomemeasuresinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingantimicrobialstewardshipinterventionspublishedbetween2011and2021