Linkin 2007.

Methods	STUDY DESIGN: unintended consequences, cohort study Risk of Bias: MEDIUM
Participants	PROVIDERS: all physicians in the hospital PARTICIPANTS: 200 patients CLINICAL PROBLEM: requests for restricted antibiotic to the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program SETTING: 1 hospital in the USA
Interventions	FORMAT: Interventions: restrictive Intervention Functions: restriction DELIVERER: AMT COMPARISON: patients with appropriate vs inappropriate requests DESIRED CHANGE: decrease excessive
Outcomes	UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: accuracy of laboratory and clinical information provided in calls to the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program
Notes	ROBINS‐I RISK OF BIAS CRITERIA: 1. Confounding: Low, the effects of inaccurate communication and each of the potential confounders on the risk of inappropriate antimicrobial recommendations were evaluated in bivariable analyses 2. Selection of participants into the study: Low, selection into the study unrelated to intervention or outcome 3. Measurement of interventions: Low, antimicrobial recommendations were evaluated for appropriateness by a 3‐person panel of infectious diseases experts blinded to the accuracy of information communicated during the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program call 4. Departures from intended interventions: Low, no switches to other interventions or evidence of intervention failure 5. Missing data: High, panelists could not agree on appropriateness of treatment for 37 patients. Outcome data complete for the 163 included patients 6. Measurement of outcome: Low, outcome measures objective and ascertained from patient administration system 7. Selection of the reported result: High, multiple secondary analyses were performed using the main study outcome FINANCIAL SUPPORT: Funding: National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and University of Pennsylvania. Competing Interests: none declared. ADDITIONAL DATA: no response from authors to request for additional data