↓ Skip to main content

Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
66 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004417.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey KP Spurling, Chris B Del Mar, Liz Dooley, Ruth Foxlee, Rebecca Farley

Abstract

Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010 and 2013. To evaluate the effects on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance, and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections. For this 2017 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2017), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to 25 May 2017); Ovid Embase (2013 to 2017 Week 21); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1984 to 25 May 2017); Web of Science (2013 to 25 May 2017); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 September 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2017). Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages defined as having an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate antibiotics or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Three review authors independently extracted and collated data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information. For this 2017 update we added one new trial involving 405 participants with uncomplicated acute respiratory infection. Overall, this review included 11 studies with a total of 3555 participants. These 11 studies involved acute respiratory infections including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study), and a variety of RTIs (one study). Five studies involved only children, two only adults, and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in a primary care setting, three in paediatric clinics, and two in emergency departments.Studies were well reported, and appeared to be of moderate quality. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcomes assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analysis for antibiotic use and patient satisfaction.We found no differences among delayed, immediate, and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in the three studies that recruited participants with cough. For the outcome of fever with sore throat, three of the five studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and three found no difference. One study compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes.Three studies included participants with acute otitis media. Of the two studies with an immediate antibiotic arm, one study found no difference for fever, and the other study favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. One study including participants with acute otitis media compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotics and found no difference for pain and fever on Day 3.Two studies recruited participants with common cold. Neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study favoured delayed antibiotics over no antibiotics for pain, fever, and cough duration (moderate quality evidence for all clinical outcomes - GRADE assessment).There were either no differences for adverse effects or results favoured delayed antibiotics over immediate antibiotics (low quality evidence - to GRADE assessment) with no significant differences in complication rates. Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics prescription (odds ratio (OR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.05). However, a delayed antibiotic was more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.08) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).Patient satisfaction favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.06). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between delayed antibiotics and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%) (moderate quality evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (31% versus 93%) (moderate quality evidence). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (14% versus 28%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with respiratory infections, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delaying prescription of antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in using a no antibiotic strategy, a delayed antibiotics strategy may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, and thereby reduce antibiotic resistance, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels.Editorial note: As a living systematic review, this review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 36 20%
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Other 52 29%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 37%
Unspecified 54 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#268,902
of 13,855,967 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#689
of 10,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,934
of 269,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,855,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.