MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962437093

Canadian guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: clinical summary.

2014· article· en· W1962437093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtorhinolaryngologyReferralGuidelineIntensive care medicineChronic rhinosinusitisFamily medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide a clinical summary of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) that includes relevant considerations for family physicians. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Guideline authors performed a systematic literature search and drafted recommendations. Recommendations received both strength of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings. Input from external content experts was sought, as was endorsement from Canadian medical societies (Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, and the Family Physicians Airways Group of Canada). MAIN MESSAGE: Diagnosis of ABRS is based on the presence of specific symptoms and their duration; imaging or culture are not needed in uncomplicated cases. Treatment is dependent on symptom severity, with intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) recommended as monotherapy for mild and moderate cases, although the benefit might be modest. Use of INCSs plus antibiotics is reserved for patients who fail to respond to INCSs after 72 hours, and for initial treatment of patients with severe symptoms. Antibiotic selection must account for the suspected pathogen, the risk of resistance, comorbid conditions, and local antimicrobial resistance trends. Adjunct therapies such as nasal saline irrigation are recommended. Failure to respond to treatment, recurrent episodes, and signs of complications should prompt referral to an otolaryngologist. The guidelines address situations unique to the Canadian health care environment, including actions to take during prolonged wait periods for specialist referral or imaging. CONCLUSION: The Canadian guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of ABRS that reflect an evolving understanding of the disease. In addition, the guidelines offer useful tools to help clinicians discern viral from bacterial episodes, as well as optimally manage their patients with ABRS.

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)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.014

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207