Antibiotics and steroids for exacerbations of COPD in primary care: compliance with Dutch guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Dutch College of General Practitioners' guidelines specify that antibiotics should only be used for severe cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, GPs tend to administer antibiotics rather than a short course of steroid treatment regardless of severity. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine how GPs use current guidelines in treating exacerbations of COPD, in particular whether short courses of oral steroids and antibiotics are prescribed in accordance with the Dutch guidelines for COPD. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective analysis of medical records. SETTING: Primary healthcare centres. METHOD: Medical records of patients registered at four primary healthcare centres in the Netherlands were retrospectively analysed for the period March 2001-March 2003. RESULTS: Of 35,589 patients, 1.3% were registered as having a diagnosis of COPD. In 2 years, 47% of the patients had no exacerbation, 35% had one or two exacerbations, and 18% had three or more exacerbations. Of 536 exacerbations, GPs prescribed a short course of oral steroids in 30% of cases, antibiotics in 29%, steroids combined with an antibiotic in 23%, and no oral steroid course or antibiotic was prescribed in 18%. Prescriptions for patients with three or more exacerbations differed significantly from those for patients with one or two exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment is often not in accordance with current guidelines; in particular, antibiotics are prescribed more often than recommended.
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 | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".