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] Data sources: Medline (1997 to September 2004), reference lists of relevant reviews, and technical experts. ### ![Graphic][3] 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] 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".