MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing early central venous catheter Gram positive infections in oncology patients

2007· review· en· W1915203271 on OpenAlexaff
Marianne D. van de Wetering, Job B. M. van Woensel

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVancomycinAntibioticsCentral venous catheterCatheterInternal medicineMEDLINEMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineSurgeryStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term tunnelled central venous catheters (TCVCs) are increasingly used when treating oncology patients. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion, appropriate catheter maintenance and use, infections still a complication of TCVC. These infections are mainly caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of TCVC infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics in the prevention of early TCVC infections. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of administering antibiotics prior to insertion of a TCVC with or without vancomycin/heparin flush technique in the first 45 days after insertion of the catheter to prevent Gram-positive catheter-related infections in oncology patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to July 2006. MEDLINE (1966 to 2006) and EMBASE (1966 to 2006). Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and conference proceedings were hand searched. The authors of eligible studies were contacted to obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs which administered prophylactic antibiotics prior to insertion of the TCVC, and RCTs using the combination of an antibiotic and heparin to flush the CVC in oncology patients (both adults and children). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The studies identified were assessed and the data extracted independently by the two authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomization, and a quality assessment was carried out. The analysis was carried out using the standard Cochrane software package, RevMan 4.2. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with a total of 588 patients. Four reported on vancomycin/teicoplanin prior to insertion of the TCVC compared to placebo, and five trials reported on antibiotic flushing combined with heparin, compared to heparin flushing only. The overall effect of administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the catheter decreases the number of Gram positive TCVC infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.31), this effect is not significant. Flushing the TCVC with antibiotics and heparin proved to be beneficial (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87). For intraluminal colonization the baseline infection rate is 15% which leads to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 13 (95 % CI 5 to 23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Flushing of the catheter with a vanco/heparin lock solution leads to a positive overall effect. Depending on the baseline TCVC infection rate it is justified to flush the catheter with a combination of an antibiotic and heparin, if the catheter related infection-rate is high.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations105
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207