ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Peer effects on appropriate antibiotic prescribing within a patient-sharing physician network in China.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResource limitations frequently impede efforts to enhance antibiotic prescribing practices. Previous studies have suggested that physicians' behaviors can be influenced by their peers, potentially amplifying the effect of interventions through peer effects. This study aimed to examine the peer effects on physicians' appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing and to identify key physicians within their networks.
methodsWe extracted outpatient records from a regional electronic medical records database in Yinzhou, China. Physicians who prescribed more than 100 outpatient antibiotics prescription annually were included. We constructed physician networks by connecting physicians who shared at least ten patients in the same year and calculated networks' descriptive indicators. We then estimated the magnitude of peer effects on antibiotic prescribing by regressing the rate of appropriate antibiotic prescription for each physician in the current year on the average rate of their peers in the previous year.
resultsWe included 2,586 physicians, generating 13,856 physician-year observations, with an overall annual appropriate antibiotic prescribing rate of 60.7%. After adjustment, an 1% increase in the appropriate antibiotic prescribing rate among peers in the previous year is significantly associated with a 0.62% (95% CI 0.58, 0.66) increase in an individual physician's rate in the current year. Physicians with higher network centrality associate with greater effects on their peers, compared with those with lower centrality (stratified by degree centrality: 0.57[95% CI = 0.53, 0.61] vs 0.05 [0.04, 0.06]).
conclusionsPeer effect provides a promising solution to improve intervention efficiency by targeting influential opinion leaders and facilitate the diffusion of appropriate antibiotic prescribing.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.