MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of antibiotics for acute sinusitis in real‐life medical practice

2010· article· en· W1890233252 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Blin, Sylvie Blazejewski, S. Lignot, R. Lassalle, Marie‐Agnès Bernard, Delphine Jayles, Hélène Théophile, Jacques Bénichou, Jean‐Louis Demeaux, D. Ébbo, Jacques Franck, Yola Moride, D. Peyramond, B Rouveix, Miriam Sturkenboom, P Géhanno, Nicholas Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntibioticsSinusitisMedical prescriptionProspective cohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEtiologyCohortPediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: Determining bacterial aetiology of acute sinusitis is difficult without employing invasive procedures. Most episodes of acute sinusitis resolve spontaneously. Antibiotics have demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis in clinical trials yet little is known of their effectiveness in real-life treatment settings. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Most cases of untreated acute sinusitis resolved spontaneously. Antibiotics were more effective when given within the first 10 days of treatment. This had no effect on later recurrence. Patients with poor oro-dental condition or recent antibiotic use may derive the most benefit from an antibiotic prescription and this should be considered by prescribers. The antibiotics used were found to be equally effective. Existing recommendations to identify acute sinusitis with high probability of bacterial origin, such as the French recommendations, fever or duration of symptoms fail to identify patients in whom antibiotics are more effective. AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of antibiotics in acute bacterial sinusitis. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study with 2 months follow-up of 5640 patients with acute sinusitis included by a random sample from 1174 GPs and 120 ENT specialists. Main outcomes were short-term initial success, defined as the absence of prescription of (another) antibiotic or sinus lavage within 10 days, and lack of recurrence between the 11th and 60th day, after initial success. RESULTS: Initial success was found in 88.7% (95% CI 85.1, 91.4%) of patients without antibiotic prescription at inclusion and 96.2% (95% CI 95.7, 96.7%) of patients prescribed antibiotics. The 10 day adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for treatment failure (new antibiotic prescription or sinus drainage) with initial antibiotics compared with no antibiotics was 0.30 (95% CI 0.21, 0.42) with no difference between antibiotics. Antibiotics were more effective in patients with poor oro-dental condition (HR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.20) and in patients who had already used antibiotics during the previous 2 months (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03, 0.28). For patients without failure at 10 days, recurrence between the 11th and 60th day was similar whether or not they had initially been prescribed an antibiotic, 94.1% (95% CI 93.4, 94.7%) and 93.4% (95%CI 90.3, 95.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Most acute sinusitis cases not prescribed antibiotics resolve spontaneously. Antibiotics reduced by 3.3-fold the risk of failure within 10 days, without impact on later recurrence. The greatest benefit of antibiotics was found for patients with poor oro-dental condition or with antibiotic use within the previous 2 months.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.458 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207