Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775805›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2025

Academic Detailing Interventions and Evidence-Based Prescribing: A Systematic Review.

Benjamin N Rome, Ellen Dancel, Alexander Chaitoff, Dominick Trombetta, Shuvro Roy, Paul Fanikos, Jayda Germain, Jerry Avorn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A pilot intervention to improve the management of urinary tract infections in outpatient settings.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Benjamin N RomeDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ellen DancelAlosa Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alexander ChaitoffDepartment of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Dominick TrombettaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Shuvro RoyDepartment of Neurology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Paul FanikosAlosa Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jayda GermainAlosa Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jerry AvornDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Academic detailing (interactive educational outreach) is a widely used strategy to encourage evidence-based prescribing by clinicians. Objective: To evaluate academic detailing programs targeted at improving prescribing behavior and describe program aspects associated with positive outcomes. Evidence Review: A systematic search of MEDLINE from April 1, 2007, through December 31, 2022, was performed for randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of academic detailing interventions to improve prescribing. Academic detailing was defined as evidence-based medication education outreach delivered interactively to individuals or small groups of prescribers. Only studies that measured prescribing outcomes were included. Two investigators independently assessed studies for risk of bias using validated assessment tools. Among all studies rated as having low risk of bias and randomized trials rated as having moderate risk of bias, the absolute change in the proportion of patients using the targeted medications and the proportion of studies that led to significant changes in 1 or more prescribing outcome were determined. The data analysis was performed between January 25, 2022, and November 4, 2024. Findings: The 118 studies identified varied by setting (eg, inpatient, outpatient) and academic detailing delivery (eg, individual vs groups of prescribers). The most common therapeutic targets were antibiotic overuse (32 studies [27%]), opioid prescribing (24 studies [20%]), and management of mental health conditions (16 studies [14%]) and cardiovascular disease (13 studies [11%]). Most studies (66 [56%]) combined academic detailing with other interventions (eg, audit and feedback, electronic health record reminders). Among 36 studies deemed to have the lowest risk of bias, 18 interventions (50%; 95% CI, 33%-67%) led to significant improvements in all prescribing outcomes, and 7 (19%; 95% CI, 8%-36%) led to significant improvements in 1 or more prescribing outcomes. The median absolute change in the proportion of patients using the targeted medication or medications was 4.0% (IQR, 0.3%-11.3%) in the intended direction. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of academic detailing interventions addressing evidence-based prescribing, most interventions led to substantial changes in prescribing behavior, although the quality of evidence varied. These findings support the use of academic detailing to bring about more evidence-based prescribing in a variety of clinical settings.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'Drug PrescriptionsEvidence-Based MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID39775805
PMCPMC12543401

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.