Amikacin Dosing and Monitoring in Spinal Cord Injury Patients: Variation in Clinical Practice Between Spinal Injury Units and Differences in Experts' Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article was to determine the current practice on amikacin dosing and monitoring in spinal cord injury patients from spinal cord physicians and experts. Physicians from spinal units and clinical pharmacologists were asked to provide protocol for dosing and monitoring of amikacin therapy in spinal cord injury patients. In a spinal unit in Poland, amikacin is administered usually 0.5 g twice daily. A once-daily regimen of amikacin is never used and amikacin concentrations are not determined. In Belgium, Southport (U.K.), Spain, and the VA McGuire Medical Center (Richmond, Virginia), amikacin is given once daily. Whereas peak and trough concentrations are determined in Belgium, only trough concentration is measured in Southport. In both these spinal units, modification of the dose is not routinely done with a nomogram. In Spain and the VA McGuire Medical Center, monitoring of serum amikacin concentration is not done unless a patient has renal impairment. In contrast, the dose/interval of amikacin is adjusted according to pharmacokinetic parameters at the Edward Hines VA Hospital (Hines, Illinois), where amikacin is administered q24h or q48h, depending on creatinine clearance. Spinal cord physicians from Denmark, Germany, and the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation (West Orange, New Jersey) state that they do not use amikacin in spinal injury patients. An expert from Canada does not recommend determining serum concentrations of amikacin, but emphasizes the value of monitoring ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity. Experts from New Zealand recommend amikacin in conventional twice- or thrice-daily dosing because of the theoretical increased risk of neuromuscular blockade and apnea with larger daily doses in spinal cord injury patients. On the contrary, experts from Greece, Israel, and the U.S. recommend once-daily dosing and determining amikacin pharmacokinetic parameters for each patient. As there is considerable variation in clinical practice across spinal units and experts differ on ideal dosing and monitoring of amikacin therapy in spinal cord injury patients, there is an urgent need to develop best-practice guidelines.
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 | 0.058 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".