Self-administered prescriptions of oral steroids and antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: are we doing more harm than good?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often given a prescription for a short course of oral steroids and antibiotics for self-administration during an acute exacerbation. The main objective of this study was to determine the impact of such prescriptions on medical care utilization, and steroids and antibiotics intake. This retrospective cohort study included patients with moderate to severe COPD participating in a self-management programme. We compared the number of unplanned medical visits (including hospitalizations) and the utilization of systemic steroids (number of short courses, number of days on treatment) and antibiotics (number of treatments) over a period of six months following registration to the programme in patients who received such a prescription and those who did not. Data were collected from hospital and community pharmacy files. A total of 89 patients were included; 46 received a self-administered prescription. During the study period, we found no difference between the two groups in the number of unplanned medical visits. However, we observed small but significant differences in the number of short courses of Prednisone (P = 0.018) and antibiotics (P = 0.006). This translated in an important difference in the number of days on steroids over the same period (;Prescription' group: 26; controls: 8; P = 0.005). Self-administered prescriptions may increase steroids and antibiotics utilization in patients with moderate to severe COPD, without reducing the number of unplanned medical visits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".