Intraventricular antibiotics for bacterial meningitis in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal meningitis may be caused by bacteria, especially gram-negative bacteria, which are difficult to eradicate from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using safe doses of antibiotics. In theory, intraventricular administration of antibiotics would produce higher antibiotic concentrations in the CSF than intravenous administration alone, and eliminate the bacteria more quickly. However, ventricular taps may cause harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intraventricular antibiotics (with or without intravenous antibiotics) in neonates with meningitis (with or without ventriculitis) as compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics alone. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL and Science Citation Index were searched in June 2007. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials was searched in June 2004. Pediatric Research (abstracts of proceedings) were searched (1990 to April 2007) as were reference lists of identified trials and personal files. No language restrictions were applied.This search was updated in May 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria for study inclusion were: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which intraventricular antibiotics with or without intravenous antibiotics were compared with intravenous antibiotics alone in neonates (< 28 days old) with meningitis. One of the following outcomes was required to be reported: mortality during initial hospitalisation; neonatal or infant mortality, or both; neurodevelopmental outcome; duration of hospitalisation; duration of culture positivity of CSF and side effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors abstracted information for outcomes reported and one review author checked for discrepancies and entered data into RevMan 5.1. Risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), and mean difference (MD), using the fixed-effect model are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: The updated search in June 2011 did not identify any new trials. One study is included in the review. This study assessed the effect of intraventricular gentamicin in a mixed population of neonates (69%) and older infants (31%) with gram-negative meningitis and ventriculitis. Mortality was statistically significantly higher in the group that received intraventricular gentamicin in addition to intravenous antibiotics compared to the group receiving intravenous antibiotics alone (RR 3.43; 95% CI 1.09 to 10.74; RD 0.30; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.53); NNTH 3; 95% CI 2 to 13). Duration of CSF culture positivity did not differ significantly (MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -2.67 to 0.27). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In one trial that enrolled infants with gram-negative meningitis and ventriculitis, the use of intraventricular antibiotics in addition to intravenous antibiotics resulted in a three-fold increased RR for mortality compared to standard treatment with intravenous antibiotics alone. Based on this result, intraventricular antibiotics as tested in this trial should be avoided. Further trials comparing these interventions are not justified in this population.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".