MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030737851 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31821201a5

Procalcitonin for reduced antibiotic exposure in the critical care setting: A systematic review and an economic evaluation*

2011· review· en· W2030737851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daren K. Heyland, Ana Johnson, Steven Reynolds, John Muscedere

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsClinical Evaluation Research UnitQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaKingston General HospitalRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcalcitoninMedicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineRelative riskAntibioticsEmergency medicineInternal medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Procalcitonin may be associated with reduced antibiotic usage compared to usual care. However, individual randomized controlled trials testing this hypothesis were too small to rule out harm, and the full cost-benefit of this strategy has not been evaluated. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the effect of a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic strategy on clinical and economic outcomes. INTERVENTIONS: The use of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: We searched computerized databases, reference lists of pertinent articles, and personal files. We included randomized controlled trials conducted in the intensive care unit that compared a procalcitonin-guided strategy to usual care and reported on antibiotic utilization and clinically important outcomes. Results were qualitatively and quantitatively summarized. On the basis of no effect in hospital mortality or hospital length of stay, a cost or cost-minimization analysis was conducted using the costs of procalcitonin testing and antibiotic acquisition and administration. Costs were determined from the literature and are reported in 2009 Canadian dollars. Five articles met the inclusion criteria. Procalcitonin-guided strategies were associated with a significant reduction in antibiotic use (weighted mean difference -2.14 days, 95% confidence interval -2.51 to -1.78, p < .00001). No effect was seen of a procalcitonin-guided strategy on hospital mortality (risk ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.30, p = .59; risk difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.04 to +0.07, p = .61) and intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. The cost model revealed that, for the base case scenario (daily price of procalcitonin Can$49.42, 6 days of procalcitonin measurement, and 2-day difference in antibiotic treatment between procalcitonin-guided therapy and usual care), the point at which the cost of testing equals the cost of antibiotics saved is when daily antibiotics cost Can$148.26 (ranging between Can$59.30 and Can$296.52 on the basis of different assumptions in sensitivity analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy is associated with a reduction in antibiotic usage that, under certain assumptions, may reduce overall costs of care. However, the overall estimate cannot rule out a 7% increase in hospital mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.015
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations213
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207