Review: antibiotics are more effective than placebo for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ip S, Fu L, Balk E, et al . Update on acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2005;124:1–43.[OpenUrl][1] Q What are the relative efficacies of various antibiotics for treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis? Does duration of treatment affect efficacy? ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Data sources: Medline (1997 to September 2004), reference lists of relevant reviews, and technical experts. ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Study selection and assessment: published English language randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included ⩾10 patients per group and compared antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics in patients of any age with acute (<30 d) uncomplicated bacterial sinusitis or acute exacerbation of chronic sinusitis. Studies of patients with chronic sinusitis only or other respiratory infections were excluded. 2 reviewers independently assessed studies for methodological quality using a 3 category score based on level of bias. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Outcomes: treatment failure (lack of improvement or worsening of signs and symptoms by the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEvid%2BRep%2BTechnol%2BAssess%26rft.volume%253D124%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".