Nurse led education plus direct access to imaging improved diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coulthard MG, Vernon SJ, Lambert HJ, et al . A nurse led education and direct access service for the management of urinary tract infections in children: prospective controlled trial. BMJ 2003;327:656–9.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In general practice, does nurse practitioner (NP) led education plus direct access to imaging improve diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: cluster randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: {concealed}*. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: unblinded. ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: mean 20 months. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: 88 general practices in a paediatric nephrology secondary catchment area in the UK. ### ![Graphic][8] Participants: 107 100 children who were followed up for incidence of UTIs. ### ![Graphic][9] Intervention: 44 general practices were allocated to a NP led intervention (NLI) (n = 55 800 children and 185 physicians) and 44 to usual care (UC) (n = 51 300 children and 161 physicians). Physicians in the NLI group were educated about the study and new management guidelines. Physicians used the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.aulast%253DCoulthard%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BG%26rft.volume%253D327%26rft.issue%253D7416%26rft.spage%253D656%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bnurse%2Bled%2Beducation%2Band%2Bdirect%2Baccess%2Bservice%2Bfor%2Bthe%2Bmanagement%2Bof%2Burinary%2Btract%2Binfections%2Bin%2Bchildren%253A%2Bprospective%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.327.7416.656%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14500439%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=327/7416/656&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F73.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".