MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy

2015· review· en· W2120735587 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBacteriuriaPregnancyRelative riskPlaceboObstetricsIncidence (geometry)AsymptomaticChildbirthAsymptomatic bacteriuriaRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalAntibioticsPediatricsInternal medicineUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic bacteriuria occurs in 2% to 10% of pregnancies and, if not treated, up to 30% of mothers will develop acute pyelonephritis. Asymptomatic bacteriuria has been associated with low birthweight and preterm birth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria on the development of pyelonephritis and the risk of low birthweight and preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (19 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials comparing antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment in pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria found on antenatal screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies, involving almost 2000 women, were included. Antibiotic treatment compared with placebo or no treatment reduced the incidence of pyelonephritis (average risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.41; 11 studies, 1932 women; very low quality evidence). Antibiotic treatment was also associated with a reduction in the incidence of low birthweight babies (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.93; six studies, 1437 babies; low quality evidence) and preterm birth (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; two studies, 242 women; low quality evidence). A reduction in persistent bacteriuria at the time of delivery was seen (average RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.53; four studies; 596 women). There were very limited data on which to estimate the effect of antibiotics on other infant outcomes and maternal adverse effects were rarely described.Overall, all 14 studies were assessed as being at high or unclear risk of bias. While many studies lacked an adequate description of methods and the risk of bias could only be assessed as unclear, in almost all studies there was at least one domain where the risk of bias was judged as high. The three primary outcomes were assessed with GRADE software and given a quality rating. Evidence for pyelonephritis, preterm birth and birthweight less than 2500 g was assessed as of low or very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While antibiotic treatment is effective in reducing the risk of pyelonephritis in pregnancy, the estimate of the effect is very uncertain because of the very low quality of the evidence. The reduction in low birthweight and preterm birth with antibiotic treatment is consistent with theories about the role of infection in adverse pregnancy outcomes, but this association should be interpreted with caution given the very poor quality of the included studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.248 · 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