Bakhit Mina, Del Mar Chris, Scott Anna Mae, Hoffmann Tammy
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Trials. 2018 Nov 27;19(1):656. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-3040-6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
抗生素耐药性是一个全球性问题,但抗生素使用与耐药性产生及衰减之间的关系尚未得到充分理解。前瞻性研究最能提供这方面的知识,但要使其有用,必须进行良好且报告规范。对于这些研究的报告质量知之甚少。本研究旨在评估针对社区个体抗生素暴露后抗生素耐药性的前瞻性研究的报告质量。
在一项关于抗生素使用与耐药性之间关系的系统评价中确定的前瞻性研究(17项随机试验、8项队列研究)的报告质量由两名研究人员使用根据这些设计和该领域现有报告指南制定的清单(一项用于试验,一项用于队列研究)独立评估。
纳入研究充分描述的强制性项目的平均百分比(标准差,最小值 - 最大值)在试验中为59%(14%,36 - 84%),在队列研究中为52%(17%,13 - 70%)。大多数研究充分描述了研究背景和原理、抗生素干预的类型、组合及持续时间,以及分离耐药菌所遵循的抽样程序。大多数研究未报告每个时间点分析的耐药和敏感分离株的发生数量。几乎一半的试验和所有队列研究中,盲法和样本量计算报告不充分。
调查社区抗生素暴露与耐药菌分离之间关联的前瞻性研究的报告质量参差不齐。超过一半的研究缺少一些细节,这妨碍了对偏倚风险的全面评估以及对结果的准确解释和综合分析。