Community-acquired Pneumonia in North American Emergency Departments: Drug Resistance and Treatment Success with Clarithromycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information on antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) exists for patients discharged from emergency departments with community-acquired pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: Using a standardized collection process, this study examined sputum microbiology in outpatient community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in North American emergency departments between December 2001 and May 2003. Thirty-one emergency departments enrolled patients older than 18 years with a Pneumonia Severity Index of I to III. All patients received oral clarithromycin and were followed up for four weeks. SP resistance to macrolides and penicillin was determined by a central laboratory. RESULTS: Among the 317 cultured sputum samples, 116 (37%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32% to 42%) grew an identifiable organism; 74 (23% of cultured cases; 95% CI = 19% to 28%) grew non-SP organisms and 42 grew SP organisms (SP positive; 13% of cultured cases; 95% CI = 10% to 17%). A total of 13 resistant organisms (4% of cultured cases; 95% CI = 2% to 6%) were identified. Resistance to macrolides occurred in nine patients (3% of cultured cases [95% CI = 1% to 5%]; 24% of SP-positive cases [95% CI = 11% to 37%]); and resistance to penicillin occurred in nine patients (3% of all sputum-positive cases [95% CI = 1% to 5%]; 21% of SP-positive cases [95% CI = 9% to 34%]). The four-week cure rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with community-acquired pneumonia, half produced adequate sputum samples and most were culture negative. SP resistance was similar to rates from large national databases, and results were of little (if any) consequence. In low-risk Pneumonia Severity Index cases, sputum cultures should not be collected routinely.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".