Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Urinary Tract Infections in Antenatal Hydronephrosis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) is recommended to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in newborns with antenatal hydronephrosis (HN). However, there is a paucity of high-level evidence supporting this practice. The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic evaluation to determine the value of CAP in reducing the rate of UTIs in this patient population. METHODS: Pertinent articles and abstracts from 4 electronic databases and gray literature, spanning publication dates between 1990 and 2010, were included. Eligibility criteria included studies of children <2 years old with antenatal HN, receiving either CAP or not, and reporting on development of UTIs, capturing information on voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) result and HN grade. Full-text screening and quality appraisal were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 1681 citations, 21 were included in the final analysis (N = 3876 infants). Of these, 76% were of moderate or low quality. Pooled UTI rates in patients with low-grade HN were similar regardless of CAP status: 2.2% on prophylaxis versus 2.8% not receiving prophylaxis. In children with high-grade HN, patients receiving CAP had a significantly lower UTI rate versus those not receiving CAP (14.6% [95% confidence interval: 9.3-22.0] vs 28.9% [95% confidence interval: 24.6-33.6], P < .01). The estimated number needed to treat to prevent 1 UTI in patients with high-grade HN was 7. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests value in offering CAP to infants with high-grade HN, however the impact of important variables (eg, gender, reflux, circumcision status) could not be assessed. The overall level of evidence of available data is unfortunately moderate to low.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it