Guidelines for management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis: Impact on Quebec physicians' prescriptions for antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of widely distributed guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) on physician prescribing patterns. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The overall numbers of prescriptions were compared between Quebec and the rest of Canada (excluding Quebec) using IMS Health Canada Canadian Disease and Therapeutic Index and CompuScript data on the antibiotics use for ABRS for the 3-month period immediately following the distribution of the guidelines and the corresponding period the previous year. RESULTS: In comparison to the corresponding period during the previous year, antibiotic prescriptions for ABRS decreased 5.5% overall in Quebec compared with a 30.1% increase recorded in Canada excluding Quebec. CONCLUSION: While the reduction in antibiotics use noted may be multifactorial, it nevertheless suggests that it may be able to affect physician prescribing habits. SIGNIFICANCE: Knowledge of the effectiveness of this method of distribution of guidelines could be used to plan more effective means of distribution of future guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".