Treatment of non-cavitary pulmonary tuberculosis with shortened fluoroquinolone-based regimens: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: Several recent trials evaluating 4-month fluoroquinolone (FQ) containing regimens found that none of the experimental regimens were non-inferior to standard 6-month therapy in treating patients with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). OBJECTIVE: To answer whether FQ-containing duration-shortened regimens are non-inferior to standard therapy in the treatment of patients with non-cavitary PTB. DESIGN: Systematic review of all randomized and quasi-randomized trials that substituted an FQ into standard therapy for less than 6 months' duration to treat drug-susceptible, non-cavitary PTB. Non-inferiority was based on a 6% margin of difference. RESULTS: Of 4594 total participants in the three trials that met the inclusion criteria, 1066 patients had non-cavitary disease. The pooled difference in unfavorable outcomes was 5% (95%CI -3 to 13) in patients with non-cavitary disease treated with FQ-containing regimens vs. standard therapy. In subgroup analyses, the pooled difference in unfavorable outcomes was 1% (95%CI -3 to 5) when comparing the daily form of intervention regimen with standard therapy, and -1% (95%CI -5 to 4) between regimens replacing ethambutol (EMB) with an FQ and standard therapy. No difference in risk of adverse events was noted. CONCLUSION: Daily administered 4-month regimens with substitution of EMB by an FQ may be non-inferior to standard therapy in patients with culture-confirmed, non-cavitary, drug-susceptible PTB.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".