Comparison of Gentamicin Ointment to Mupirocin Ointment for Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2007, all peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in our hospital were switched from mupirocin to gentamicin ointment for daily application to the PD catheter exit site (CES). Our objective was to compare the efficacy of gentamicin and mupirocin in the prevention of catheter-related PD infections. We conducted an observational sequential cohort study to compare infectious outcomes with the 2 ointments. Mupirocin patients were followed retrospectively from January 2004 to June 2006 and gentamicin patients prospectively from July 2007 to December 2008. All patients were followed for 18 months following catheter insertion. Fifty-nine patients were included in the mupirocin arm and 37 patients in the gentamicin arm. Time to first infection (either CES or peritonitis) was similar between arms, with a probability of being infection-free at 12 months of 67% versus 53%, respectively (p=0.34). There were no differences in rates of overall infection (0.54 vs 0.56 infections per patient-year, respectively (p=0.94)) or peritonitis (0.41 vs 0.37 per patient-year, respectively (p=0.84). There were 5 pseudomonal infections in the mupirocin arm and none with gentamicin. It was concluded that topical gentamicin has comparable effectiveness to mupirocin for prevention of PD catheter-related infections. Keywords: Gentamicin, mupirocin, peritoneal dialysis, peritonitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".