An analysis of reporting quality of prospective studies examining community antibiotic use and resistance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals.

METHODS: The quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field.

RESULTS: The mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59% for trials (14%, 36-84%) and 52% for cohort studies (17%, 13-70%). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.

Original languageEnglish
Article number656
Number of pages7
JournalTrials
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Nov 2018

Cite this

@article{b574f0f6c4e640939923281cbdd60413,
title = "An analysis of reporting quality of prospective studies examining community antibiotic use and resistance",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals.METHODS: The quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field.RESULTS: The mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59{\%} for trials (14{\%}, 36-84{\%}) and 52{\%} for cohort studies (17{\%}, 13-70{\%}). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies.CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.",
author = "Mina Bakhit and {Del Mar}, Chris and Scott, {Anna Mae} and Tammy Hoffmann",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1186/s13063-018-3040-6",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
journal = "Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine",
issn = "1745-6215",
publisher = "BMC",
number = "1",

}

An analysis of reporting quality of prospective studies examining community antibiotic use and resistance. / Bakhit, Mina; Del Mar, Chris; Scott, Anna Mae; Hoffmann, Tammy.

In: Trials, Vol. 19, No. 1, 656, 27.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of reporting quality of prospective studies examining community antibiotic use and resistance

AU - Bakhit, Mina

AU - Del Mar, Chris

AU - Scott, Anna Mae

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy

PY - 2018/11/27

Y1 - 2018/11/27

N2 - BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals.METHODS: The quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field.RESULTS: The mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59% for trials (14%, 36-84%) and 52% for cohort studies (17%, 13-70%). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies.CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.

AB - BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals.METHODS: The quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field.RESULTS: The mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59% for trials (14%, 36-84%) and 52% for cohort studies (17%, 13-70%). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies.CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057256334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13063-018-3040-6

DO - 10.1186/s13063-018-3040-6

M3 - Article

VL - 19

JO - Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

JF - Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

SN - 1745-6215

IS - 1

M1 - 656

ER -