Ruben Burvenich, David Ag Bos, Lien Lowie, Kiyano Peeters, Jaan Toelen, Laure Wynants, Jan Y Verbakel
{"title":"Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ruben Burvenich, David Ag Bos, Lien Lowie, Kiyano Peeters, Jaan Toelen, Laure Wynants, Jan Y Verbakel","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Safety-netting advice (SNA) can help in the management of acutely ill children.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different SNA methods on antibiotic prescription and consumption in acutely ill children.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, and controlled before-after studies in ambulatory care in high-income countries.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (22 January 2024). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with Cochrane's RoB 2 tool, the Revised Cochrane Tool for Cluster-Randomised Trials, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach. Sensitivity analyses and network meta-regression were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 30 studies (20 interventions) were included. Compared with usual care, paper SNA may reduce: antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53 to 0.82, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 92%, very low certainty, three studies, 35 988 participants), especially when combined with oral SNA (OR 0.40, 95% CI = 0.08 to 2.00, <i>P</i>-score = 0.86); antibiotic consumption (OR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.58, low RoB, one study, 509 participants); and return visits (OR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.87). Compared with usual care, video SNA, read-only websites, oral SNA, and web-based SNA (in descending order of effectiveness) may increase parental knowledge (ORs 2.33-4.52), while paper SNA may not (ORs 1.18-1.62). Similarly, compared with usual care, video SNA and web-based modules may improve parental satisfaction (ORs 1.94-4.08), while paper SNA may not (OR 1.85, 95% CI = 0.48 to 7.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Paper SNA (with oral SNA) may reduce antibiotic use and return visits. Video, oral, and online SNA may improve parental knowledge, whereas video SNA and web-based modules may increase parental satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e90-e97"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694319/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Safety-netting advice (SNA) can help in the management of acutely ill children.
Aim: To assess the effectiveness of different SNA methods on antibiotic prescription and consumption in acutely ill children.
Design and setting: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, and controlled before-after studies in ambulatory care in high-income countries.
Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (22 January 2024). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with Cochrane's RoB 2 tool, the Revised Cochrane Tool for Cluster-Randomised Trials, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach. Sensitivity analyses and network meta-regression were performed.
Results: In total, 30 studies (20 interventions) were included. Compared with usual care, paper SNA may reduce: antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53 to 0.82, I2 = 92%, very low certainty, three studies, 35 988 participants), especially when combined with oral SNA (OR 0.40, 95% CI = 0.08 to 2.00, P-score = 0.86); antibiotic consumption (OR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.58, low RoB, one study, 509 participants); and return visits (OR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.87). Compared with usual care, video SNA, read-only websites, oral SNA, and web-based SNA (in descending order of effectiveness) may increase parental knowledge (ORs 2.33-4.52), while paper SNA may not (ORs 1.18-1.62). Similarly, compared with usual care, video SNA and web-based modules may improve parental satisfaction (ORs 1.94-4.08), while paper SNA may not (OR 1.85, 95% CI = 0.48 to 7.08).
Conclusion: Paper SNA (with oral SNA) may reduce antibiotic use and return visits. Video, oral, and online SNA may improve parental knowledge, whereas video SNA and web-based modules may increase parental satisfaction.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.