Actual article (the BMJ peer reviewed analysis) is behind a paywall. But my thoughts as a microbiologist are that this is more a situation when the "course" tha

Actual article (the BMJ peer reviewed analysis) is behind a paywall. But my thoughts as a microbiologist are that this is more a situation when the "course" that's been prescribed is generally wrong or the diagnosis is wrong. In either case, the risk for increased resistance is high, while the value for treatment low. Without a positive biochemical assay to assert a bacterial agent, antibiotics should not be prescribed, but likely are. Knowing how long a course to prescribe takes empirical evidence, which seems to indicate shorter courses are needed. Since I don't have access to the actual research, I'm guessing that it's more like "old, long antibiotic prescriptions were generally over prescribed, doctors should prescribe shorter doses and confirm with lab that bacterial agent present" It's been a decade since I've need antibiotics, but the last time I took a z-pak which is only 3 doses. Since initial immune response normally takes longer to ramp up and normally is a few days, this seems reasonable.