Abstract
Background: Digital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions, such as clinical decision support systems, audit and feedback platforms, and electronic prescribing tools, have been increasingly adopted to improve antibiotic use. However, the effectiveness of these interventions across healthcare settings remains uncertain, and the certainty of the evidence has not been comprehensively evaluated. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of digital interventions in optimizing antimicrobial use and improving clinical outcomes within a broad spectrum of healthcare settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating digital AMS interventions that followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO CRD420251178854 and funded by the Wellcome Trust CAMO Net programme. Searches were performed across major databases. Primary outcomes included the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions and the antibiotic prescription rate. Secondary outcomes included 30 day mortality, 30 day hospital readmission, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Random effects models were used to pool effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed RoB 2, and certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. A Summary of Findings table was prepared to present effect estimates, sample sizes, and evidence certainty. Results: Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and nine were included in the quantitative synthesis. Digital AMS interventions did not show a significant effect on appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.05; very low certainty). There was no reduction in antibiotic prescription (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.09), with substantial statistical heterogeneity and very low certainty. Across clinical outcomes, digital AMS showed no effect on 30 day mortality (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.09; very low certainty) or 30 day readmission (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.14; very low certainty). For LOS, results were inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect showed no clinically meaningful change (MD 0.17 days, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.35; very low certainty). Most trials had some concerns of bias due to deviations from intended interventions. Conclusion: Meta-analyses of digital AMS RCTs showed a lack of evidence with a high level of certainty on antibiotic prescribing or clinical outcomes due to high heterogeneity in interventions and study designs, as well as RCTs' limitations (no adoption/fidelity metrics).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
Funder Information Declared
