ArticlePloS one2026
Optimizing surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis through clinical pharmacist-led audit and feedback: Evidence from a Vietnamese tertiary hospital.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inappropriate use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) remains a common issue in Vietnam, posing a significant risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) and other adverse outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led audit-feedback (A&F) intervention, as part of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program, on improving compliance with SAP guidelines. A prospective pre-post interventional study was conducted in the surgical departments of Saint Paul General Hospital. A multidisciplinary team, led primarily by clinical pharmacists, conducted audit-feedback activities on SAP practices from December 2023 to April 2024. The primary outcome was the overall compliance rate with SAP guidelines. Secondary outcomes included compliance with specific components: antibiotic selection, timing of administration, dosing, and duration of use. A total of 162 patients in the pre-intervention group and 147 in the post-intervention group were included. After two audit-feedback phases, overall compliance with SAP guidelines significantly increased from 60.49% to 76.87% (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 1.71-5.28). Notably, the most significant improvements were observed in the appropriateness of antibiotic selection and duration of use, increasing from 74.69% to 88.44% (OR: 2.57, 95%CI: 1.40-4.89) and 72.84% to 88.44% (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.55-5.36), respectively. Conclusion, the audit-feedback intervention led by clinical pharmacists substantially improved compliance with SAP guidelines across several domains. This study provides pragmatic evidence from a tertiary hospital in Vietnam, demonstrating that audit-feedback is not only feasible but also impactful in resource-limited settings. Importantly, this approach could inform scalable AMS and infection prevention policies in other low-and middle-income countries.
Indexed as
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.