A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics.

Publication Year: 2022

DOI:
10.1111/bcp.15254

PMCID:
PMC9313811

PMID:
35112381

Journal Information

Full Title: Br J Clin Pharmacol

Abbreviation: Br J Clin Pharmacol

Country: Unknown

Publisher: Unknown

Language: N/A

Publication Details

Subject Category: Pharmacology

Available in Europe PMC: Yes

Available in PMC: Yes

PDF Available: No

Transparency Score
4/6
66.7% Transparent
Transparency Indicators
Click on green indicators to view evidence text
Core Indicators
Data Sharing
Code Sharing
Evidence found in paper:

"COMPETING INTERESTS L.v.D. has received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for a study not related to this review. C.L. has received research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, unrelated to this review. No other funding was received for writing this review."

Evidence found in paper:

"Funding information Teva Pharmaceutical Industries"

Evidence found in paper:

"This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020188552). We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library with key concepts “anti‐bacterial agents”, “drug utilization”, “community pharmacy services” and “clinical trials”, using the search strategies provided in Appendix . All databases were searched from inception until 11 January 2021. Reference lists and citations of included studies were backward searched for additional studies. From the Cochrane Library, only references not published in PubMed or EMBASE were included in the screening. No restrictions were applied in ways of publication language. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist‐led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient‐reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the ‘Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria’ and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted."

Open Access
Paper is freely available to read
Additional Indicators
Replication
Novelty Statement
Assessment Info

Tool: rtransparent

OST Version: N/A

Last Updated: Aug 05, 2025