Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Previous Standard of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current literature reports that outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programs improve cure rates, and reduce length of hospitalization and costs. OPAT programs are still relatively new in Canada. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits of an OPAT program initiated at a multispecialty tertiary care facility in Toronto, Ontario, compared with the previous standard of care. METHODS: The present retrospective observational study was conducted using data from a group of surgical patients who were treated for active infections. Between February 1, 2010 and November 30, 2010, a total of 108 surgical patients were enrolled in the OPAT program. Patients were matched 1:1 with historical controls discharged between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2010 according to age, sex, type of surgery, infection and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). Cure rate, 30-day rehospitalization and length of stay were evaluated as primary end points. RESULTS: Of 108 eligible OPAT patients, 21 were matched to the control group using the prespecified criteria. For this cohort, the OPAT program was associated with improved cure rates (OPAT 61.7% versus control 57.1%; P>0.10), reduction in rehospitalization rate (14.3% versus 28.6%; P>0.10) and reduced length of stay (10.7 versus 13.9 days, P>0.10) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: For this cohort of surgery patients, the OPAT program demonstrated a trend toward improved outcomes but did not achieve statistical significance. Due to the lack of statistical power, further evaluation is required to determine the full benefit of OPAT to patients and the health care system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".