References | Study design | Major findings | Strengths | Limitations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Umeokonkwo et al. [15] | Cross-sectional | Less utilisation of available antimicrobial guidelines High prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing | Sample size was determined and justified | Single centre |
Abubakar, [17] | Cross-sectional | High prevalence of antimicrobial use Broad spectrum antimicrobials were most frequently used Prolonged surgical prophylaxis was observed | Study included both secondary and tertiary hospitals Case files were reviewed for actual antimicrobial prescriptions Justifiable sample size | Antimicrobial exposure was assessed once, and so may not be representative of routine use in the hospitals |
Fawotade et al. [23] | Cross-sectional | Broad spectrum antimicrobials were most commonly prescribed Non-existent compliance to guidelines was observed | Study included all the in-patients in all the wards | Antimicrobial prescriptions was assessed once |
Kpokiri et al. [24] | Retrospective and cross-sectional (mixed method) | Broad spectrum antimicrobials were most commonly used Relevant microbiological tests showed no evidence of need for some of the prescriptions Low observance of Nigeria standard treatment guideline | Included secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities | Potential self-reporting bias |
Oshikoya et al. [26] | Retrospective | Broad spectrum antimicrobials were most commonly prescribed Poor compliance with international SAP guidelines Under-dosing of most antimicrobials | Well defined study objectives Uniform inclusion and exclusion criteria for study population | Single centre |
Ogunleye et al. [11] | Cross-sectional | Antimicrobial prescriptions was commonly based on clinical judgment | Good sample size effect | Potential self-reporting bias Exposure was assessed once |
Abubakar et al. [14] | Cross-sectional | Observed redundant antimicrobial prescriptions Broad spectrum antimicrobials was mostly used | Clearly defined and valid outcome measures | Lack of randomisation Incomplete surveillance for surgical infections among patients Primary and secondary hospitals were excluded, limiting generalisation |
Roberts et al. [10] | Retrospective | Unnecessary antimicrobial use in some patients Poor practice of relevant laboratory tests prior prescription Few prescribers complied with departmental guidelines | Well defined objectives and reliable outcome measures | Single centre which limits generalisation |
Efunshile et al. [9] | Cross-sectional | High prevalence of antibiotics use Antibiotics were prescribed without apparent medical indications | Relevant microbial tests were performed during the study to determine the relevance of the prescribed antibiotics Study included multi-centre Follow-up of patients was performed after hospital discharge | Non-randomisation Purposive sampling |
Oyemolade et al. [28] | Retrospective | Unnecessary antimicrobial therapy was reported Broad spectrum antimicrobials were mostly used | Clearly stated study objectives Good sample size effect | Study was conducted in a single-centre, limiting generalisation of findings Study did not also include outcome measures |
Illiyasu et al. [29] | Retrospective | Unnecessary antibiotic therapy was reported Frequent use of broad spectrum antibiotics was also seen | Clear study objectives, clearly specified study population | Single centre |
Ekuma et al. [16] | Retrospective | High prevalence of antimicrobial prescriptions Non-use of biomarkers to guide antimicrobial prescriptions | Clearly specified study population Sample size was specified | Single centre |