Intraventricular antibiotics for bacterial meningitis in neonates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Neonatal meningitis may be caused by bacteria, especially gram-negative bacteria, which are difficult to eradicate from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using safe doses of antibiotics. In theory, intraventricular administration of antibiotics would produce higher antibiotic concentrations in the CSF than intravenous administration alone, and eliminate the bacteria more quickly. However, ventricular taps may cause harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intraventricular antibiotics (with or without intravenous antibiotics) in neonates with meningitis (with or without ventriculitis) as compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics alone. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL and Science Citation Index were searched in June 2007. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials was searched in June 2004. Pediatric Research (abstracts of proceedings) were searched (1990 to April 2007) as were reference lists of identified trials and personal files. No language restrictions were applied.This search was updated in May 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria for study inclusion were: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which intraventricular antibiotics with or without intravenous antibiotics were compared with intravenous antibiotics alone in neonates (< 28 days old) with meningitis. One of the following outcomes was required to be reported: mortality during initial hospitalisation; neonatal or infant mortality, or both; neurodevelopmental outcome; duration of hospitalisation; duration of culture positivity of CSF and side effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors abstracted information for outcomes reported and one review author checked for discrepancies and entered data into RevMan 5.1. Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), and mean difference (MD), using the fixed-effect model are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: The updated search in June 2011 did not identify any new trials. One study is included in the review. This study assessed the effect of intraventricular gentamicin in a mixed population of neonates (69%) and older infants (31%) with gram-negative meningitis and ventriculitis. Mortality was statistically significantly higher in the group that received intraventricular gentamicin in addition to intravenous antibiotics compared to the group receiving intravenous antibiotics alone (RR 3.43; 95% CI 1.09 to 10.74; RD 0.30; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.53); NNTH 3; 95% CI 2 to 13). Duration of CSF culture positivity did not differ significantly (MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -2.67 to 0.27). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In one trial that enrolled infants with gram-negative meningitis and ventriculitis, the use of intraventricular antibiotics in addition to intravenous antibiotics resulted in a three-fold increased RR for mortality compared to standard treatment with intravenous antibiotics alone. Based on this result, intraventricular antibiotics as tested in this trial should be avoided. Further trials comparing these interventions are not justified in this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».