Ceftriaxone for Refractory Acute Otitis Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the use of ceftriaxone for the treatment of refractory acute otitis media (AOM) at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. METHODS: Charts of all patients aged 3 to 60 months referred from an emergency department to a day treatment center for management of refractory AOM with ceftriaxone were reviewed. Data were collected during two 18-month periods before and after implementation of a CPG developed by a local group of experts. Ceftriaxone was indicated for children with symptomatic AOM despite 48 hours of treatment with high-dosage amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate (>75 mg/kg per day) or despite receiving 1 of these 2 antibiotics over the previous month. Overall treatment was considered adequate if patients met these indications for ceftriaxone, if at least 3 daily doses had been prescribed, and if all doses were within the 40- to 60-mg/kg range. RESULTS: Thirty-two emergency physicians referred 127 patients to the day treatment center (60 preimplementation and 67 postimplementation of the CPG). The mean (SD) patient ages were 16.7 (7.4) and 19.7 (12.4) months in the preimplementation and postimplementation groups, respectively. Indications for prescription of ceftriaxone were adequate in 16.7% of the preguideline and 22.4% of the postguideline groups (P = 0.4). Physicians were twice as likely to use ceftriaxone adequately after the guideline's implementation, but this result was not statistically significant (crude odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a CPG for the treatment of refractory AOM with ceftriaxone did not improve indications for its use.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".