Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Protocol

Methods for estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review protocol

Authors: Nichola R. Naylor, Sachin Silva, Kavian Kulasabanathan, Rifat Atun, Nina Zhu, Gwenan M. Knight, Julie Robotham

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to ascertain AMR impact, to evaluate interventions, and to allocate resources efficiently. Recent studies have estimated health, cost, and economic burden relating to AMR, with outcomes of interest ranging from drug-bug resistance impact on mortality in a hospital setting to total economic impact of AMR on the global economy. However, recent collation of this information has been largely informal, with no formal quality assessment of the current evidence base (e.g. with predefined checklists). This review therefore aims to establish what perspectives and resulting methodologies have been used in establishing the burden of AMR, whilst also ascertaining the quality of these studies.

Methods

The literature review will identify relevant literature using a systematic review methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and EconLit will be searched utilising a predefined search string. Grey literature will be identified by searching within a predefined list of organisational websites. Independent screening of retrievals will be performed in a two-stage process (abstracts and full texts), utilising a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted into a data extraction table and descriptive examination will be performed. Study quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales and the Philips checklists where appropriate. A narrative synthesis of the results will be presented.

Discussion

This review will provide an overview of previous health, cost and economic definitions of burden and the resultant impact of these different definitions on the burden of AMR estimated. The review will also explore the methods that have been used to calculate this burden and discuss resulting study quality. This review can therefore act as a guide to methods for future research in this area.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016037510
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
World Health Organisation. Global report on surveillance. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2014.
3.
4.
5.
De Angelis G, D’Inzeo T, Fiori B, Spanu T, Sganga G. “Burden of antibiotic resistant gram negative bacterial infections: evidence and limits”,. J Med Microbiol Diagn. 2014;3:132.
6.
Gandra S, Barter DM, Laxminarayan R. Economic burden of antibiotic resistance: how much do we really know? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:973–80.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
9.
Wilton P, Smith R, Coast J, Millar M. Strategies to contain the emergence of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(2):111–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Takizawa C, Thompson PL, van Walsem A, Faure C, Maier WC. Epidemiological and economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic literature review of data across Europe and the United States of America. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;43(4):1271–84.PubMed
11.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Rose TC, Adams N, Taylor-Robinson DC, Barr B, Hawker J, O’Brien S, Violato M, Whitehead M. Relationship between socioeconomic status and gastrointestinal infections in developed countries: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2016;5:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Schulpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:355–71.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Metadata
Title
Methods for estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review protocol
Authors
Nichola R. Naylor
Sachin Silva
Kavian Kulasabanathan
Rifat Atun
Nina Zhu
Gwenan M. Knight
Julie Robotham
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0364-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Systematic Reviews 1/2016 Go to the issue

Protocol

Association between physical performance and cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease: protocol for a meta-analysis

Protocol

Effects of clinical pathways for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on patient, professional and systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

The impact of cash transfers on social determinants of health and health inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Viscoelastic testing for hepatic surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis—a protocol

Protocol

The effectiveness and safety of treatments used for acute diarrhea and acute gastroenteritis in children: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Protocol

Quality metrics in solid organ transplantation: protocol for a systematic scoping review