Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-ABX-20 standard review
Antibiotics and resistance in the individual
Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Overview
Costelloe C et al.. BMJ 2010 · PMID 20483949 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.c2096
After an antibiotic, resistant bacteria are more common for months.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review.
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
24 studies.
- What was actually found?
Resistance rises.
- How large was the observed effect?
OR 2.5.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Each course matters.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD
- Journal
- BMJ
- Year
- 2010
- Identifier
- PMID 20483949 DOI 10.1136/bmj.c2096
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record (grants: Department of Health)
2. Research question
Does primary-care prescribing cause resistance in the individual?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Population
Patients
- Country
Multinational
- Period
to 2009
- Sample size
24 studies
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Observational and RCTs
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Antibiotic prescription
- Comparator
None
- Endpoints
Resistance
- Statistical methods
Pooled OR
5. Actual results
- Results
Urinary: OR 2.5 (2.1-2.9) within 2 months, 1.33 within 12 months; respiratory OR 2.4.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Resistance develops; may persist up to 12 months.
6. Strengths
- Systematic
7. Weaknesses
- Mostly observational
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Robust.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Bibliography only.
- A. What was actually studied?
Individual resistance.
- B. What did the authors find?
Resistance after prescribing.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As found.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports overuse harm.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Justified.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable