Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Evaluation of Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: Process, Implementation, Impact and Outcomes. Review of Systematic Reviews

Altmetrics

Downloads

136

Views

60

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

24 January 2024

Posted:

24 January 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP) were introduced in healthcare as a public health priority to promote appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials, reduce antimicrobials adverse events as well as control challenges of antimicrobial resistance. To deliver aimed outcome objectives, ASPs involve multiple implementation measures. A review of systematic review was conducted to evaluate ASPs process and outcome measures. Guided by PRISMA frames, published systematic reviews (SR) focusing on ASPs restricted to secondary healthcare were evaluated over the past 10 years by examining major and primary databases involving all age groups. Out of 265 identified SR studies, 63 met inclusion criteria, the majority were conducted in European and North American regions. All age groups were examined in the studies but mainly conducted in adults when compared to children and infants . Both ASPs process and outcomes measures were examined equally and simultaneously through 25 different concepts, dominated by efficacy , antimicrobial resistance , and economic impact while information technology as well as role of pharmacy and behavioural factors were equally examined . The main broad conclusions from the review , that across the globe, ASPs demonstrated effectiveness, proved efficacy, and confirmed efficiency while focused evaluation advocate that developed countries should target medium and small sized hospitals while developing countries should continue rolling ASPs in their healthcare facilities . Additionally , the future of ASPs should focus on embracing evolving information technology to bridge gaps in knowledge, alter attitude and enhance decision making .
Keywords: 
Subject: Public Health and Healthcare  -   Public Health and Health Services

1. Introduction

The primary goals of Public Health (PH), are to improve population wellbeing and outcomes through promotion of health , prevention of diseases and facilitation of fair access to healthcare [1]. Fundamental to the concept of PH is the provision of safe and quality care which is equitable and cost effective [2]. To achieve such targets, efforts should be directed towards reliable mechanisms for evaluation of healthcare programs interventions [3]. Historically, aims were directed towards efficacy and outcomes, however it has been argued that achieving intended objectives does not always equate delivering quality care since according to Linford et al; outcomes measures are “blunt instruments for judging performance” [4]. To bridge that gap , quality experts recommend provision of appropriate evaluation methods to facilitate delivery of aimed objectives [4]. Therefore, programs evaluation is of utmost importance primarily to appraise effectiveness and desired outcomes, as well as address challenges [5]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of USA , the process is defined as : “a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using data to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and, importantly, to contribute to continuous program improvement”[6].
Alarmed by concerns regarding inappropriate and over-prescribing of antimicrobials in healthcare that is directly linked to patients adverse events as well as being indirectly associated with escalating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) , at the turn of the 21th century , Western healthcare authorities across the Atlantic introduced the concept of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) following a justifiable appeal from the field experts [7] . According to the CDC, at inpatient hospital settings, more than 50 % of prescribed antimicrobials are not consistent with recommended practice while the majority of common infections are over-treated [6]. The National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence (NICE) in UK , defines the process as: “the organizational or healthcare-system-wide approach to promote and monitor the judicious use of antimicrobials to preserve their future effectiveness” [8]. The program entails collaboration of a wide range of healthcare professionals led by infection and antimicrobial specialists with prime aim to oversee appropriate and optimal prescribing of antimicrobials through provision of guidance, awareness in addition to monitoring of outcomes [9].
Almost twenty-five years following its implementation, ASPs became widely accepted and subsequently embraced at national and international levels and eventually promoted by the WHO to the point of being hailed as one of the major 21st century public health interventions [10,11,12] .Nevertheless, because of differences in healthcare settings and population diversity , there have been uncertainties regarding conclusive and generalizable evidence to answer raised questions such as efficacy, and outcomes [12,13]. For example, there are implementation challenges because of local epidemiology or healthcare settings [14,15], conflicting differences for optimal programs elements [13,16], key role of antimicrobial pharmacists [17], paucity of reporting of microbiological outcomes [18] and challenges in surveillance processes [13]. Similarly, program outcomes such as targeted mortality has been conflicting with reports citing lower rates while others showing no differences [19,20]. Conversely, despite multiple studies concluded that ASPs can reduce AMR [21,22,23] , others were not conclusive [24,25]. Equally, the economic impact of the program is confounded by difficulties in adopting consensus models [10,26] . Lastly and importantly, although the program has major components, some studies looked at additional IT reinforcing concepts such as use of smart applications which merits further evaluation [27,28].
For all these reasons, it is prudent to have an umbrella overview to evaluate ASPs process measures, impact and outcomes as well as assess any specific service improvement concepts. Distinctively, although other systematic reviews, meta- analysis and overviews examined different concepts of ASPs repeatedly, they only focused on specific aspects rather than the overall aspects [25,29,30].

2. Methods and Search Strategies

A systematic literature review was conducted guided by the framework of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [31]. We included only peer reviewed primary systematic reviews (SRs) in ASPs that reported any implementation process, impact, or outcomes measures specifically at inpatients hospital settings with no age restrictions. Five major databases were searched: OVID-Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases and Google Scholar. The search was conducted and updated up to 28th August 2022 restricted for the last 10 years focusing on humans with no language restrictions. Studies that were conducted at primary, ambulatory or long-term facilities were excluded together with studies that focused on singular countries or pathogens. Similarly, studies identified mainly as reviews or scoping reviews with non-congruent systematic reviews methodology were excluded. Since the COVID-19 pandemic was still unfolding, related data on the subjects were excluded. Guided by inclusion and exclusion criteria, two separate primary investigators screened titles, abstract and methods and agreed on final output when selected studies were read in depth including ranking for critical appraisal.

3. Search Outcomes

The search outcome is depicted as recommended in PRISMA Figure 1 and details of search protocols are provided at Appendix 1. Out of 265 identified SRs, 202 studies were excluded leaving the remaining 63 studies for final analysis.

4. Synthesis of Evidence

Since studies were heterogenous in concepts and methods examining wide aspects of the program, thematic categorization of studies was performed to produce subclassifications according to published reporting period, origin of affiliated institutions, global or regional focus of studies, studied population and more importantly, objective concepts. The six recognized WHO geographical criteria were used to group regional countries accordingly [32]. From each examined themes, specific conclusions were extracted together with relevant recommendations.

5. Critical Appraisal for Quality of Evidence

Critical appraisal of the examined SRs was conducted by two investigators using the updated online version of: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) [33]. Studies were ranked from high to critically low depending on the overall non-numerical assessment. It must be emphasized that since the concept of ASPs is complex, with clear heterogeneity that is frequently not tested through desired evidence-based practice including randomized trials or meta-analysis with no rigorous safeguarding for biases , it wasn’t surprising that the stringent AMSTAR -2 critical appraisal criteria rated most SRs as low quality with the exception of two Table 1 [24,34].

6. Results

Out of 63 selected systematic reviews, the majority were conducted in European region (EUR : 31) and regions of Americas (AMR: 14) at a total of 71 % (46/63) , while the remaining regions constituted 29 % ( 18/63) detailed as : Western Pacific region (WPR:8) , Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO: 7) , Southeast Asian Region (SEAR: 2) and the African Region (AF:1) as outlined in Figure 2 . Most of the SRs (84 %) focused on global objectives while only 16 % reported regional data. Predominant SRs (51/63) included all age groups, while adults were specified in 6, children in 5 and infants in only 1 study. The ASPs were evaluated through 25 different concepts dominated by efficacy and safety [9] and AMR as outcomes [8], while economic impact was evaluated in [5] studies, role of information technology in [5], as well as the role of pharmacy [4] and behavioral factors [4] as outlined in Table 2. Out of the 63 SRs , 22 (35 %) examined solely implementation process while 17 (27 %) focused on outcome measures and the two concepts were examined in 38 %.

7. Overview of Evaluation Process

Examining the spectrum of global studies, most SRs focused on Western population with paucity of data from developing countries Figure 2. In their large and high rated SR focusing on efficacy and safety, Davey et al study encompassed 221 articles included 58 randomized controlled trials and 163 that wasn’t: studies were from North America [96] and Europe [87] while the remaining were from Asia [19], South America [8], Australia [8], and the East Asia [3] [24]. Table 1 and Table 2.

8. Studied Population

The ASPs systematic reviews identified studied population as adults, children, and infants mainly from high income Western countries [24,35,36]. Most of data from the SRs were extracted from adults’ population while data from the pediatric cohorts are scarce specially regarding the implementation measures Table 2 [18,36]. Despite the limited available data from the children population, the ASPs managed to implement objectives without compromising safety even at pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) with limited data regarding healthcare associated infections and antimicrobial resistance [36].

9. Healthcare Settings

Although the majority of secondary care facilities in developed countries are small and medium sized hospitals (200- 500 beds) , the majority of data were extracted from studies conducted at large size hospitals (> 500 beds) albeit antimicrobial consumption might be similar but the implementation barriers are more pronounced [10,37]. Conversely, despite the highlighted benefits of the program at different part across the globe, there are equally outlined implementation and outcome challenges in developing regions leading to strong demands to strengthen fundamental programs aspects [11,14,15,38] .Therefore, to improve global delivering of ASPs objectives , healthcare services in developed countries should focus their attention towards small and medium sized hospitals while developing countries should cement ASPs core elements.

10. Process Implementation Interventions

The main examined interventions during program implementation include empirical therapy according to guidelines, timely de-escalation therapy, switch from intravenous to oral, therapeutic drug monitoring and preauthorization through restricted antimicrobials lists . From multiple SRs, there is evidence of successful implementation of these interventions aligned with outcomes [15,24,25,29]. When comparing enablement objectives with or without ASPs interventions, there was no observed mortality differences [24]. Efficacy without compromising safety has been similarly observed in vulnerable population at critical units both at adults and pediatrics settings through effective program interventions of audit of prescribing, feedback, education, and persuasion [20,24,39].

11. Epidemiology and Surveillance

Although the importance of surveillance and epidemiological reports in guiding ASPs has been clearly overstated, however, from multiple SRs, challenges are evidence both in developed and developing countries with variable representation [13,14,15]. Moreover, although ASPs have been implemented with anticipations to curb AMR as an outcome, SR studies described challenges in accurate reporting in healthcare affecting accuracy [25,40]. Additionally, there were paucity of studies that report accurate microbiological results linked to ASPs which is the hallmark for monitoring AMR [18]. To bridge such gaps, it is advocated to conduct proper AMR surveillance methods in all healthcare facilities that should guide ASPs implementation process and not vice versa [13,41] .

12. Efficacy and Safety

Since the program concepts are based upon restricting antimicrobials as well as reducing the duration of therapy, there have been some concerns that it might impact on patients’ safety. From multiple SRs, ASPs proved to be efficacious in reducing antimicrobial consumption and inappropriate prescribing without compromising patients’ safety both for adults and pediatrics populations [19,35,42,43]. The feared prime concern was directed towards critical care where highest levels of hospital antimicrobial consumption is usually reported combined with critical nature of patients’ cohort. Nevertheless, SRs in such important aspect affirmed safety and efficacy although the evidence is more pronounced for adults when compared to pediatrics population because of limited data [20,39,42,44]. However, the picture is not fully clear since counter argument that restricting antimicrobials at critical care settings might be protective through limiting unfavorable adverse events or might be confounded by the plausible practice of reducing interventions in less critical patients [44].

13. Influencing Prescribing Behavior

The foremost definition of ASPs accentuates “appropriate and judicious prescribing of antimicrobials” which entails focusing efforts to influence the behavior and attitude for antimicrobial prescribing directed towards healthcare professionals [24]. Determinants factors imported from behavioral studies such as psychosocial theory of planned behavior advocates how developed cognition influence decision making and behavior [45,46]. In ASPs, the main positive attitude determinants that influences prescribing behavior has been identified as education and training as well as audit and feedback aimed to alter conceived prescribing cultures [24]. Despite the conceivable association between the influence of cognitive behavioral and previous experience on prescribing cultures, some SRs pointed towards gaps in targeting described attitude particularly lack of qualitative studies to address raised barriers hence exploring prescribing attitude and practice particularly behavior changed techniques is advocated both in developed and developing countries [24,46,47].

14. Quantifying Metrics

Appropriate quantifying metrics (QM) must be adopted to closely monitor consumption as well as estimate associated costs. As the concepts of ASPs were introduced without defining relevant QMs, ensuing challenges were to evaluate exiting as well as develop new ones [48]. Amongst the existing QMs were the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) which was developed in the late 1970s , standardized through patients’ total hospital days depicted per 1000s days (DDD-1000 days) [49]. In their SR regarding QMs, Stanic Benic et al identified 12 common measurements that include the commonly used DDDs, Days of Therapy (DOT) as well as total antimicrobial cost. The recommended practice is a combined metric approach using at least two of the prime measures [50]. Despite there have been many cited limitations for using QMs such as DDDs because of variations in relation to geographical locations or hospital setting , role of weight adjustments, adjusted doses in renal impairment as well as combined therapy , however it has been widely adopted across the globe in the adults population as well as being recommended by the WHO [51]. In the pediatric population, identified metric challenges concluded no optimal recommended measures although DOT are generally preferred when compared to DDDs [52].

15. Role of Pharmacy

Few SRs examined the roles of antimicrobial pharmacist during implementation of ASPs demonstrating effectiveness interventions in form of education-based interventions, compliance with guidelines and reduction in the duration of antimicrobial therapy calling for further empowerment [53]. Similarly, the role of pharmacists has been emphasized at the emergency department as well as small and medium sized hospitals where pharmacists play a major role in ensuring appropriate prescribing and guarding against misuse [17,54] . Uniquely, Daniels and Weber looked at the role of hospital-based pharmacists in verifying hospital discharge antimicrobials highlighting positive outcomes in validating antibiotic choice, duration, frequency, and directed therapy in line with ASPs objectives [55].

16. Evaluation of Outcome Measures

16.1. Interface of ASP and Its Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance

The global and secondary care burden of antimicrobial resistance on morbidity , mortality and cost of management has been previously outlined in major studies [56,57]. Despite the plausible link between antimicrobials consumption and the development of AMR, the causal relationship proved difficult to establish. In their SR encompassing 32 studies and almost 9 million reviewed reported cases, Baur et al reported that ASPs reduces hospital infection and colonization with multidrug resistance organisms (MDRO) and clostridium Difficile infections by a factor of almost 50 %, a similar outcome of reduction of infections caused by MDROs was shared by Karanika et al adding that reduced antimicrobial consumption was not associated with observed adverse outcomes [29,58] . This view is contradicted by Tacconelli et al highlighting flaws with epidemiological reports , while Chatzopoulou et al pointed that the plausible projected hypothesis is supported by poor evidence as well as Bertollo et al citing paucity of randomized control trials and reliance on observational and quasi experimental studies [13,40,59] . The lack of conclusive evidence to support direct correlation has been affirmed by a wider meta- analysis by Schuts et al [25].
Trying to delve into potential explanations for the lack of supporting evidence despite the coherent assumption, there are major confounding factors which are impossible to control. For example, potential factors that is might directly affect propagation of AMR include, local environment and various healthcare settings , demographics of affected populations including susceptibilities to infections either from acquired or genetic factors or colonization with resistant strains , previous exposure to antimicrobials , dominance of certain resistant clones, access to critical care including the use of invasive devices as well as local practices of infection control and prevention [13,60,61]. Hence, to bridge the obvious gap between implementation of ASPs and reduction of AMRs at healthcare settings, it is conceivable to advocate a reliable and functional epidemiological reporting and surveillance systems which must be continuously improved and developed [13] .

16.2. Economic Impact and Cost Effectiveness

Although it wasn’t declared amongst the main goals of ASPs at its inception , it was soon realized that there are observed secondary benefits based upon economic savings [62]. From reciprocated SRs, the economic benefit of the ASPs is evident mainly through three main aspects: direct saving from restricting more expensive broad-spectrum antimicrobials, reduction of duration of therapy as well as reducing patients’ length of hospital stay [10,26,29,63] . Nevertheless, there were conclusive remarks that there are non-uniform agreements for calculating economic parameters, quality of extracted data, and heterogeneity of studies as in pediatric population [36,64,65].

16.3. Quality Assessment and Development of ASPs

In healthcare, quality has been defined as “the systemic process to improve healthcare delivery” which is integral to provision of continuously developed ASPs [66]. In their SR, Schweitzer et al concluded the overall studies in ASPs are of low quality and did not improve over time, additional they expressed concerns of lack of microbiological and clinical data as an outcome calling to improve of studies methodology [64]. To converge towards consensus quality indicators for ASPs, about 50 QIs have been outlined to serve towards future standardized measures [67]. As quality challenges in reporting and surveillance has been outlined calling for standardized methods both in developed and developing countries [13,15]

17. Role of Modern Information Technology

Since the ASPs heavily relies on updated knowledge, accurate prescribing, applied and retrieved data, it is plausible to explore the role of information technology (IT) towards quality improvement of the program [68]. The concept has been explored by Baysari et al identifying computerized decision support system (CDSSs), computerized antimicrobial approval system and surveillance methods concluding positive outcomes confounded by the absence of comparative studies [27]. Although the modern role of CDSSs became more evident in ASPs, Rawson et al expressed concerns it was not designed properly to guide antimicrobial prescribers calling for better models [69]. Furthermore, Micallef et al advocated secondary use of information technology and hospital electronic systems to support delivering of effective ASPs [70]. Lastly, although not supported by much updated evidence, the use of specific ASPs smartphone applications to improve knowledge, skills and attitude towards antimicrobial prescribing demonstrated a promising platform that worth exploring [28] .

18. Limitations

One of the fundamental limitations of the evaluation of the SRs regarding ASPs, that the prime concept is relatively new at different parts of the world with less than 25 years of experience with continuously evolving standards. From the review, most of the data are driven from established Western healthcare facilities with limited comparators from global developing countries. Additionally, from multiple SRs, extracted evidence is mainly from observational studies rather than the gold standards of randomized controlled or interventional trials with no comparators, dwarfing generated evidence and conclusions. Even upon review of studies examining shared concepts such as AMR or economic burden, there are clearly highlighted heterogeneity of studies, objectives and methodology and no consensus of agreed measurements making combining evidence synthesis a daunting task. These limitations were undoubtedly reflected on the quality of evidence extracted from SRs examined through AMSTAR critical appraisal tool which demonstrated uniformly low-quality standards. Furthermore, from reviewing the concept of ASPs, there are multiple co-dependent confounding factors that can affect implantations and outcome processes. For example, facilities related infection prevention and control programs practices can directly impact upon both implantation processes such as increased antimicrobial consumption or outcomes by spreading AMR. Additionally, local population characteristics, healthcare settings, resources, and facilities as well as professional practice culture have direct impact on ASPs.

19. Summary and Conclusions

The review of the SRs evaluating ASPs implementation process, impact, and outcome delineated that the concepts are strongly cemented in Western healthcare facilities but evolving in developing countries. The studied population is mainly adults from Western countries with limited data from children and infants. Implantation effectiveness process consists of multiple connected concepts ranging from guidelines, restricted antimicrobials as well as role of IT and pharmacists to influencing prescribers’ behaviors. For safety and efficacy, objective interventions has been met in all evaluating studies including vulnerable population such as children as well as patients at critical care. As for efficiency, evaluation of the economic impact of ASPs as a secondary outcome, demonstrated proven benefit mainly through reduction in expenditure of antimicrobial therapy as well as reduction of patients’ length of hospital stay. Although one of the fundamental aims of the ASPs is to reduce the mounting scale of AMR , evaluated evidence did not conclusively supported that objective opening the gates for conducting further research in that field with better designed studies . Similarly, there is lack of consensus regarding quality indicators that set the objectives for the program standards for future evaluation. Correspondingly, with the advances on reliance on IT in healthcare, there are promising but not sufficiently explored opportunities to expand that aspect for the better delivery of ASPs aimed objectives .

Author Contributions

HAH conceive the systematic review ideas and developed the search protocol as well as drafted the initial manuscript. HAH, SA and FE examined and reviewed search outcomes including critical appraisal to assess the quality of included studies. JD performed statistical analysis. FA and CM provide the needed supervision for the overall project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

No funding was needed for the study.

Ethics Approval: Data Availability and Management

The study did not need ethical approval. All relevant data were extracted from online search engines as described in methodology.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support of Qatar National Library towards the support of the academic publication.

Conflicts of Interest

Our HMC team consisted of an ID physician (Dr Hamad Abdel Hadi) , a microbiologist (Dr Faiha Eltayeb) and two biostatisticians/epidemiologists (Sara Al Balushi and Joanne Daghfal) who were part of the review process including critical appraisal. There are no conflicts of interest in relation to the project as declared.

References

  1. Bloland P, Simone P, Burkholder B, Slutsker L, De Cock KM. The role of public health institutions in global health system strengthening efforts: the US CDC's perspective. PLoS Med. 2012, 9, e1001199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mayberry, R.M.; Nicewander, D.A.; Qin, H.; Ballard, D.J. Improving Quality and Reducing Inequities: A Challenge in Achieving Best Care. Bayl. Univ. Med Cent. Proc. 2006, 19, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lacouture, A.; Breton, E.; Guichard, A.; Ridde, V. The concept of mechanism from a realist approach: a scoping review to facilitate its operationalization in public health program evaluation. Implement. Sci. 2015, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lilford, R.J.; A Brown, C.; Nicholl, J. Use of process measures to monitor the quality of clinical practice. BMJ 2007, 335, 648–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dixon-Woods M, McNicol S, Martin G. Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012, 21, 876–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. CDC. Program Evaluation 2022 [cited 2022. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/evaluation/index.htm.
  7. Dyar OJ, Huttner B, Schouten J, Pulcini C. What is antimicrobial stewardship? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 793–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. NICE. Antimicrobial stewardship: systems and processes for effective antimicrobial medicine use. 2015.
  9. Mendelson, M.; Morris, A.M.; Thursky, K.; Pulcini, C. How to start an antimicrobial stewardship programme in a hospital. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 26, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Nathwani, D.; Varghese, D.; Stephens, J.; Ansari, W.; Martin, S.; Charbonneau, C. Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]: a systematic review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2019, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Pierce, J.; Apisarnthanarak, A.; Schellack, N.; Cornistein, W.; Al Maani, A.; Adnan, S.; Stevens, M.P. Global Antimicrobial Stewardship with a Focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A position statement for the international society for infectious diseases. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 96, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. de Kraker, M.E.; Abbas, M.; Huttner, B.; Harbarth, S. Good epidemiological practice: a narrative review of appropriate scientific methods to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 819–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tacconelli, E.; A Cataldo, M.; Paul, M.; Leibovici, L.; Kluytmans, J.; Schröder, W.; Foschi, F.; De Angelis, G.; De Waure, C.; Cadeddu, C.; et al. STROBE-AMS: recommendations to optimise reporting of epidemiological studies on antimicrobial resistance and informing improvement in antimicrobial stewardship. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ababneh, M.A.; Nasser, S.A.; Rababa’h, A.M. A systematic review of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program implementation in Middle Eastern countries. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 105, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Honda, H.; Ohmagari, N.; Tokuda, Y.; Mattar, C.; Warren, D.K. Antimicrobial Stewardship in Inpatient Settings in the Asia Pacific Region: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, S119–S126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Losier, M.; Ramsey, T.D.; Wilby, K.J.; Black, E.K. A Systematic Review of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in the Emergency Department. Ann. Pharmacother. 2017, 51, 774–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kooda, K.; Canterbury, E.; Bellolio, F. Impact of Pharmacist-Led Antimicrobial Stewardship on Appropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2022, 79, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lau, T.M.M.; Daniel, R.; Hughes, K.; Wootton, M.; Hood, K.; Gillespie, D. A systematic review investigating the use of microbiology outcome measures in randomized controlled trials evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions published between 2011 and 2021. JAC-Antimicrobial Resist. 2022, 4, dlac013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davey P, Brown E, Charani E, Fenelon L, Gould IM, Holmes A, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013, Cd003543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lindsay, P.J.; Rohailla, S.; Taggart, L.R.; Lightfoot, D.; Havey, T.; Daneman, N.; Lowe, C.; Muller, M.P. Antimicrobial Stewardship and Intensive Care Unit Mortality: A Systematic Review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 68, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hagiwara, D.; Sato, K.; Miyazaki, M.; Kamada, M.; Moriwaki, N.; Nakano, T.; Shiotsuka, S.; Tokushige, C.; Toh, H.; Kamimura, H.; et al. The impact of earlier intervention by an antimicrobial stewardship team for specific antimicrobials in a single weekly intervention. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 77, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tandan, M.; Thapa, P.; Maharjan, P.; Bhandari, B. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship program on antimicrobial-resistance and prescribing in nursing homes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2022, 29, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yusef, D.; A Hayajneh, W.; Issa, A.B.; Haddad, R.; Al-Azzam, S.; A Lattyak, E.; Lattyak, W.J.; Gould, I.; Conway, B.R.; Bond, S.; et al. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship programme on reducing broad-spectrum antibiotic use and its effect on carbapenem-resistantAcinetobacter baumannii(CRAb) in hospitals in Jordan. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 76, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Davey, P.; Marwick, C.A.; Scott, C.L.; Charani, E.; McNeil, K.; Brown, E.; Gould, I.M.; Ramsay, C.R.; Michie, S. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients (updated protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014, 2, CD003543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schuts, E.C.; Boyd, A.; E Muller, A.; Mouton, J.W.; Prins, J.M. The Effect of Antibiotic Restriction Programs on Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofab070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dik, J.-W.H.; Vemer, P.; Friedrich, A.W.; Hendrix, R.; Lo-Ten-Foe, J.R.; Sinha, B.; Postma, M.J. Financial evaluations of antibiotic stewardship programs—a systematic review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 317–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Baysari, M.T.; Lehnbom, E.C.; Li, L.; Hargreaves, A.; Day, R.O.; Westbrook, J.I. The effectiveness of information technology to improve antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2016, 92, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Helou, R.I.; Foudraine, D.E.; Catho, G.; Latif, A.P.; Verkaik, N.J.; Verbon, A. Use of stewardship smartphone applications by physicians and prescribing of antimicrobials in hospitals: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karanika, S.; Paudel, S.; Grigoras, C.; Kalbasi, A.; Mylonakis, E. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes from the Implementation of Hospital-Based Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 4840–4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. A Van Dort, B.; Penm, J.; Ritchie, A.; Baysari, M.T. The impact of digital interventions on antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals: a qualitative synthesis of systematic reviews. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2022, 77, 1828–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. WHO. WHO regions 2023 [Available from: https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/regional-offices.
  33. Shea, B.J.; Reeves, B.C.; Wells, G.; Thuku, M.; Hamel, C.; Moran, J.; Moher, D.; Tugwell, P.; Welch, V.; Kristjansson, E.; et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017, 358, j4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rajar, P.; Saugstad, O.D.; Berild, D.; Dutta, A.; Greisen, G.; Lausten-Thomsen, U.; Mande, S.S.; Nangia, S.; Petersen, F.C.; Dahle, U.R.; et al. Antibiotic Stewardship in Premature Infants: A Systematic Review. Neonatology 2020, 117, 673–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Donà D, Barbieri E, Daverio M, Lundin R, Giaquinto C, Zaoutis T, et al. Implementation and impact of pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs: a systematic scoping review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smith, M.J.; Gerber, J.S.; Hersh, A.L. Inpatient Antimicrobial Stewardship in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review. J. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. Soc. 2015, 4, e127–e135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stenehjem, E.; Hyun, D.Y.; Septimus, E.; Yu, K.C.; Meyer, M.; Raj, D.; Srinivasan, A. Antibiotic Stewardship in Small Hospitals: Barriers and Potential Solutions. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 65, 691–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akpan, M.R.; Isemin, N.U.; Udoh, A.E.; Ashiru-Oredope, D. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in African countries: a systematic literature review. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 22, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chorafa, E.M.; Komatsiouli, V.P.; Iosifidis, E.; Kourti, M.; Sdougka, M.; Roilides, E. Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in PICU Settings: A Systematic Review. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2022, 24, e20–e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bertollo, L.G.; Lutkemeyer, D.S.; Levin, A.S. Are antimicrobial stewardship programs effective strategies for preventing antibiotic resistance? A systematic review. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2018, 46, 824–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pezzani, M.D.; Mazzaferri, F.; Compri, M.; Galia, L.; Mutters, N.T.; Kahlmeter, G.; E Zaoutis, T.; Schwaber, M.J.; Rodríguez-Baño, J.; Harbarth, S.; et al. Linking antimicrobial resistance surveillance to antibiotic policy in healthcare settings: the COMBACTE-Magnet EPI-Net COACH project. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, ii2–ii19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Araujo da Silva AR, Albernaz de Almeida Dias DC, Marques AF, Biscaia di Biase C, Murni IK, Dramowski A, et al. Role of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in children: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2018, 99, 117–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nathwani, D.; Sneddon, J.; Malcolm, W.; Wiuff, C.; Patton, A.; Hurding, S.; Eastaway, A.; Seaton, R.A.; Watson, E.; Gillies, E.; et al. Scottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group (SAPG): development and impact of the Scottish National Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2011, 38, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tabah, A.; Cotta, M.O.; Garnacho-Montero, J.; Schouten, J.; Roberts, J.A.; Lipman, J.; Tacey, M.; Timsit, J.-F.; Leone, M.; Zahar, J.R.; et al. A Systematic Review of the Definitions, Determinants, and Clinical Outcomes of Antimicrobial De-escalation in the Intensive Care Unit. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 62, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rich, A.; Medisauskaite, A.; Potts, H.W.W.; Griffin, A. A theory-based study of doctors’ intentions to engage in professional behaviours. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Warremana, E.; Lambregtsa, M.; Wouters, R.; Visser, L.; Staats, H.; van Dijk, E.; de Boer, M. Determinants of in-hospital antibiotic prescription behaviour: a systematic review and formation of a comprehensive framework. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 25, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Porter, G.J.; Owens, S.; Breckons, M. A systematic review of qualitative literature on antimicrobial stewardship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Health Res. Policy 2021, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brotherton, A.L. Metrics of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 102, 965–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bitterman, R.; Hussein, K.; Leibovici, L.; Carmeli, Y.; Paul, M. Systematic review of antibiotic consumption in acute care hospitals. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 561–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Benić, M.S.; Milanič, R.; A Monnier, A.; Gyssens, I.C.; Adriaenssens, N.; Versporten, A.; Zanichelli, V.; Huttner, B.; Tebano, G.; E Hulscher, M.; et al. Metrics for quantifying antibiotic use in the hospital setting: results from a systematic review and international multidisciplinary consensus procedure. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, vi50–vi58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zanichelli, V.; A Monnier, A.; Gyssens, I.C.; Adriaenssens, N.; Versporten, A.; Pulcini, C.; Le Maréchal, M.; Tebano, G.; Vlahović-Palčevski, V.; Benić, M.S.; et al. Variation in antibiotic use among and within different settings: a systematic review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, vi17–vi29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fortin. ; Fontela, P.S.; Manges, A.R.; Platt, R.W.; Buckeridge, D.L.; Quach, C. Measuring antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients: a systematic review of available measures applicable to paediatrics. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 1447–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Monmaturapoj, T.; Scott, J.; Smith, P.; Abutheraa, N.; Watson, M. Pharmacist-led education-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions and their effect on antimicrobial use in hospital inpatients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J. Hosp. Infect. 2021, 115, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mas-Morey, P.; Valle, M. A systematic review of inpatient antimicrobial stewardship programmes involving clinical pharmacists in small-to-medium-sized hospitals. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2017, 25, e69–e73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Daniels, L.M.; Weber, D.J. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing at hospital discharge: A systematic review. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 42, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2022, 399, 629–55. [CrossRef]
  57. Naylor, N.R.; Atun, R.; Zhu, N.; Kulasabanathan, K.; Silva, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Knight, G.M.; Robotham, J.V. Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control. 2018, 7, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baur, D.; Gladstone, B.P.; Burkert, F.; Carrara, E.; Foschi, F.; Döbele, S.; Tacconelli, E. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 990–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chatzopoulou, M.; Reynolds, L. Role of antimicrobial restrictions in bacterial resistance control: a systematic literature review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 104, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chatterjee, A.; Modarai, M.; Naylor, N.R.; E Boyd, S.; Atun, R.; Barlow, J.; Holmes, A.H.; Johnson, A.; Robotham, J.V. Quantifying drivers of antibiotic resistance in humans: a systematic review. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, e368–e378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, Q.; Li, D.; Beiersmann, C.; Neuhann, F.; Moazen, B.; Lu, G.; Müller, O. Risk factors for antibiotic resistance development in healthcare settings in China: a systematic review. Epidemiol. Infect. 2021, 149, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. McGowan JE, Gerding DN. Does antibiotic restriction prevent resistance? New horizons (Baltimore, Md). 1996, 4, 370–6.
  63. Huebner, C.; Flessa, S.; Huebner, N.-O. The economic impact of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals: a systematic literature review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 102, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schweitzer, V.A.; van Heijl, I.; van Werkhoven, C.H.; Islam, J.; Hendriks-Spoor, K.D.; Bielicki, J.; Bonte, M.J.; Walker, A.S.; Llewelyn, M.J.; Harbarth, S.; et al. The quality of studies evaluating antimicrobial stewardship interventions: a systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 25, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ibrahim, N.H.; Maruan, K.; Khairy, H.A.M.; Hong, Y.H.; Dali, A.F.; Neoh, C.F. Economic Evaluations on Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme: A Systematic Review. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 20, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. McGregor, J.C.; Fitzpatrick, M.A.; Suda, K.J. Expanding Antimicrobial Stewardship Through Quality Improvement. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e211072–e211072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. A Monnier, A.; Schouten, J.; Tebano, G.; Benić, M.S.; Milanič, R.; Adriaenssens, N.; Versporten, A.; Huttner, B.; Zanichelli, V.; E Hulscher, M.; et al. Quality indicators for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting: a systematic review followed by an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, vi30–vi39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bremmer, D.N.; Trienski, T.L.; Walsh, T.L.; Moffa, M.A. Role of Technology in Antimicrobial Stewardship. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 102, 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rawson TM, Moore LSP, Hernandez B, Charani E, Castro-Sanchez E, Herrero P, et al. A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 524–32. [CrossRef]
  70. Micallef, C.; Chaudhry, N.T.; Holmes, A.H.; Hopkins, S.; Benn, J.; Franklin, B.D. Secondary use of data from hospital electronic prescribing and pharmacy systems to support the quality and safety of antimicrobial use: a systematic review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 1880–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chatzopoulou, M.; Reynolds, L. Systematic review of the effects of antimicrobial cycling on bacterial resistance rates within hospital settings. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 88, 897–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Davey, P.; Peden, C.; Charani, E.; Marwick, C.; Michie, S. Time for action—Improving the design and reporting of behaviour change interventions for antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals: Early findings from a systematic review. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 45, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kallen, M.C.; Prins, J.M. A Systematic Review of Quality Indicators for Appropriate Antibiotic Use in Hospitalized Adult Patients. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2017, 9, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. O’riordan, F.; Shiely, F.; Byrne, S.; Fleming, A. Quality indicators for hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: a systematic review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, 1406–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pouly, E.; Coppry, M.; Rogues, A.-M.; Dumartin, C. Systematic review of factors promoting behaviour change toward antibiotic use in hospitals. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rzewuska, M.; Duncan, E.M.; Francis, J.J.; Morris, A.M.; Suh, K.N.; Davey, P.G.; Grimshaw, J.M.; Ramsay, C.R. Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Antibiotic Stewardship Programmes in Hospitals in Developed Countries: Insights From Transnational Studies. Front. Sociol. 2020, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Schuts, E.C.; Hulscher, M.E.J.L.; Mouton, J.W.; Verduin, C.M.; Stuart, J.W.T.C.; Overdiek, H.W.P.M.; van der Linden, P.D.; Natsch, S.; Hertogh, C.M.P.M.; Wolfs, T.F.W.; et al. Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Van Dijck C, Vlieghe E, Cox JA. Antibiotic stewardship interventions in hospitals in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018, 96, 266–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Feazel, L.M.; Malhotra, A.; Perencevich, E.N.; Kaboli, P.; Diekema, D.J.; Schweizer, M.L. Effect of antibiotic stewardship programmes on Clostridium difficile incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 1748–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Murray, M.T.; Beauchemin, M.P.; Neu, N.; Larson, E.L. Prior antibiotic use and acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms in hospitalized children: A systematic review. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2019, 40, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rennert-May, E.; Chew, D.S.; Conly, J.; Guirguis, M.; Slobodan, J.; Fryters, S.; Bresee, L. Clinical practice guidelines for creating an acute care hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship program: A systematic review. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2019, 47, 979–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rittmann, B.; Stevens, M.P. Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Role in Antibiotic Stewardship: a Systematic Review. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2019, 21, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wade, T.; Heneghan, C.; Roberts, N.; Curtis, D.; Williams, V.; Onakpoya, I. Healthcare-associated infections and the prescribing of antibiotics in hospitalized patients of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) states: a mixed-methods systematic review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2021, 110, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wagner B, Filice GA, Drekonja D, Greer N, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in inpatient hospital settings: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014, 35, 1209–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Abo YN, Freyne B, Kululanga D, Bryant PA. The Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Children in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Systematic Review. Pediatr. Infect Dis. J. 2022, 41, S10–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Lee, C.F.; Cowling, B.J.; Feng, S.; Aso, H.; Wu, P.; Fukuda, K.; Seto, W.H. Impact of antibiotic stewardship programmes in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Lim JM, Singh SR, Duong MC, Legido-Quigley H, Hsu LY, Tam CC. Impact of national interventions to promote responsible antibiotic use: a systematic review. J. Antimicrob Chemother. 2020, 75, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Roman, C.; Edwards, G.; Dooley, M.; Mitra, B. Roles of the emergency medicine pharmacist: A systematic review. Am. J. Health Pharm. 2018, 75, 796–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Siachalinga, L.; Mufwambi, W.; Lee, I.-H. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing for hospital inpatients in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Hosp. Infect. 2022, 129, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Atamna-Mawassi, H.; Huberman-Samuel, M.; Hershcovitz, S.; Karny-Epstein, N.; Kola, A.; Cortés, L.E.L.; Leibovici, L.; Yahav, D. Interventions to reduce infections caused by multidrug resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2021, 83, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Garwan, Y.M.; Alsalloum, M.A.; Thabit, A.K.; Jose, J.; Eljaaly, K. Effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on early switch from intravenous-to-oral antimicrobials in hospitalized adults: A systematic review. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2023, 51, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hashad, N.; Perumal, D.; Stewart, D.; Tonna, A. Mapping hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes in the Gulf Cooperation Council states against international standards: a systematic review. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 404–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Keikha, M.; Kamali, H.; Ghazvini, K.; Karbalaei, M. Conceptual framework of antibiotic stewardship programs in reducing ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Chemother. 2022, 34, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nasr, Z.; Paravattil, B.; Wilby, K. the impact of antimicrobial stewardship strategies on antibiotic appropriateness and prescribing behaviours in selected countries in the Middle East: a systematic review. East. Mediterr. Health J. 2017, 23, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Teerawattanapong, N.; Kengkla, K.; Dilokthornsakul, P.; Saokaew, S.; Apisarnthanarak, A.; Chaiyakunapruk, N. Prevention and Control of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2017, 64, S51–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Preprints 97186 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing search steps from identification, screening, and final inclusion.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing search steps from identification, screening, and final inclusion.
Preprints 97186 g001
Preprints 97186 g002
Figure 2. Systematic reviews publication sites according to the WHO regional classifications and cumulative records of publication year. EUR: European region, AMR: Region of Americas, WPR: Western Pacific Region, EMRO: Eastern Mediterranean Region, SEAR: Southeast Asian Region and AF: African Region.
Figure 2. Systematic reviews publication sites according to the WHO regional classifications and cumulative records of publication year. EUR: European region, AMR: Region of Americas, WPR: Western Pacific Region, EMRO: Eastern Mediterranean Region, SEAR: Southeast Asian Region and AF: African Region.
Preprints 97186 g002
Table 1. Systematic reviews studies classified according to first author, year of publication, publishing institution according to the WHO regional classification, number of evaluated studies and primary studied concepts as well as examined process and outcome measures.
Table 1. Systematic reviews studies classified according to first author, year of publication, publishing institution according to the WHO regional classification, number of evaluated studies and primary studied concepts as well as examined process and outcome measures.
Regions Systematic reviews/year Approach Primary concept Reviewed studies Process measures Outcome measures *AMSTAR-2 Quality Ref
Europe (EUR) Baur 2017
Chatzopoulou 2020
Chatzopoulou 2022
Corafa 2022
Davey 2013
Davey 2015
Davey 2017
Donà 2020
Dik 2015
Helou 2020
Huebner 2019
Kallen 2017
Lau 2022
Mas-Morey 2018
Micallef 2017
Monmaturapoj 2021
Monnier 2018
Nathwani 2019
O'Riordan 2021
Porter 2021
Pouly 2022
Rajar 2021
Rawson 2017
Rzewuska 2020
Schuts 2016
Schuts 2021
Schweitzer 2019
Stanic 2018
Tacconelli 2016
Van Dijck 2018
Warreman 2019		 Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Regional
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Adverse Events
Antimicrobial Resistance
Antimicrobial Resistance
Critical Care
Effectiveness
Behaviour
Safety and efficacy
Efficacy
Economic impact
Information Technology
Economic Impact
Quality Indicators
Microbiological outcomes
Role of Pharmacy
Information Technology
Role of Pharmacy
Quality Indicators
Clinical and Economic outcomes
Quality Indicators
Behavioural Factors
Behavioural Factors
Safety
Information Technology
Implementation
Efficacy
Antimicrobial Resistance
Quality of studies
Metrics
Surveillance
Middle- and low-income countries
Behavioural Factors 		32
15
29
13
89
116
221
113
95
13
16
14
117
28
14
52
70
164
16
14
124
12
58
145
15
145
825
168
78
27
9		 No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes		 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
 CL
CL
CL
CL
L
CL
H
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
H
CL
CL
CL
L
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL		 [58]
[59]
[71]
[39]
[19]
[72]
[24]
[35]
[26]
[28]
[63]
[73]
[18]
[54]
[70]
[53]
[67]
[43]
[74]
[47]
[75]
[34]
[69]
[76]
[77]
[25]
[64]
[50]
[13]
[78]
[46]
Americas (AMR) Araujo da Silva 2018
Bertollo 2018
Daniels 2021
Feazel 2014
Karanika 2016
Kooda 2022
Lindsay 2019
Losier 2017
Murray 2021
Rennert-May 2017
Rittmann 2019
Smith 2015
Wade 2021
Wagner 2014		 Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Regional
Regional 		Effectiveness
Antimicrobial Resistance
Discharge medications
Adverse Events
Economic Impact
Role of Pharmacy
Critical care
Emergency Department
Antimicrobial Resistance
Guidelines
Information Technology
Efficacy
Healthcare Associated infections.
Efficacy 		9
26
6
78
26
24
1143
29
5
45
9
21
37		 Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes		 Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes 		L
CL
CL
L
CL
L
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL		 [42]
[40]
[55]
[79]
[29]
[17]
[20]
[16]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[36]
[83]
[84]
West Pacific Region (WPR) Abo 2020
Baysari 2016
Honda 2017
Lee 2018
Lim 2020
Roman 2018
Siachalinga 2022
Tabah 2016		 Global
Global
Regional
Regional
Global
Global
Global
Regional 		Efficacy
Information Technology
Safety and efficacy
Safety and efficacy
National Interventions
Role of Pharmacy
Efficacy
Critical Care 		34
45
46
77
34
15
28
14		 Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes		 Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes		 L
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
L
CL		 [85]
[27]
[15]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[44]
East Mediterranean (EMRO) Ababneh 2021
Atamna-Mawassi 2021
Bitterman 2016
Garwan 2022
Hashad 2020
Keikha 22
Nasr 2017 		Regional
Global
Global
Global
Regional
Global
Regional 		Implementation
Antimicrobial Resistance
Antimicrobial consumption
Antimicrobial Switch
Effectiveness
Antimicrobial Resistance
Behavioural factors 		20
63
80
36
17
17
20		 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes		 Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No 		CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
L
CL		 [14]
[90]
[49]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
Southeast Asia (SEAR) Ibrahim 2017
Teerawattanapong 2017		 Global
Global		 Economic Impact
Antimicrobial Resistance 		5
42		 No
Yes		 Yes
Yes		 CL
CL		 [65]
[95]
Africa (AF) Akpan 2020 Regional Implementation 13 Yes Yes CL [38]
* AMSTAR-2 : Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews , evaluation tool to review the methodological quality of systematic reviews : H ; high quality review, M ; moderate , L; low , CL ; critically low.
Table 2. Primary examined concepts for the systematic reviews .
Table 2. Primary examined concepts for the systematic reviews .
Primary focus Frequency Percentage
Antimicrobial Resistance 8 12.7
Efficacy 6 9.52
Behaviour 5 7.94
Information technology 5 7.94
Economic impact 4 6.35
Quality 4 6.35
Role of Pharmacy 4 6.35
Critical Care 3 4.76
Effectiveness 3 4.76
Efficacy and Safety 3 4.76
Implementation 3 4.76
Adverse Events 2 3.17
Antimicrobial Switch 1 1.59
Antimicrobial consumption 1 1.59
Clinical and economic outcomes 1 1.59
Discharge medications 1 1.59
Emergency department 1 1.59
Guidelines 1 1.59
Healthcare Associated infections 1 1.59
Metrics 1 1.59
Microbiological outcomes 1 1.59
Middle- and low-income countries 1 1.59
National interventions 1 1.59
Safety 1 1.59
Surveillance 1 1.59
Total 63 100 %
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated