MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Oral Ciprofloxacin Prophylaxis in BMT Recipients: A Case-Control Study.

2007· article· en· W2560620586 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro R. Camacho, James R. Russell, Karen Shepard, Diana Quinlan, Jan Mclaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCiprofloxacinInternal medicineNeutropeniaConfoundingAntibiotic prophylaxisSurgeryAntibioticsChemotherapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bacterial infections remain a major source for morbidity and mortality in peripheral stem cell (PSC) and bone marrow (BM) transplant recipients. Despite the considerable number clinical trials, there is still no consensus of opinions for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. In order to analyze the impact on bacteraemia of withdrawing ciprofloxacin prophylaxis from PSC and BM transplant patients during neutropenia, a total of 617 records were reviewed and found suitable for analysis; 310 autologous and 307 allogenic from Jan 4, 2001 to Dec 27, 2005. Ciprofloxacin was used as a prophylactic measure among all these autologous and allogenic stem cell and bone marrow transplant patients until January 31, 2004. As of February 1, 2004, it was no longer given as a prophylactic measure. Patient characteristics were found similar in the group with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis and the group without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. Resistant bacteraemia was defined as either ciprofloxacin resistant gram negative bacteria, or VRE, or MRSA. For the analysis the two proportions were compared with a log binomial regression model using generalized estimating equations to account for the lack of independence in the observations. Bacteraemia was the dependent variable, and time periods prior transplant year and year of transplant were included as independent variables. The model was used to generate variance estimates for the proportions, and to check for confounding. Prior transplant year or year of transplant were not confounding variables so, there was no need for adjusted estimates. The analysis shows that the relative risk of developing bacteraemia in the autologous and allogenic groups after ciprofloxacin prophylaxis was discontinued compared with when it was used routinely in the same group was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2–1.6) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4–1.6) respectively. The change in the proportion of patients developing bacteraemia was not statistically significant .The estimation of 100 day-survival from transplant was determined by time period using the Kaplan-Meier Method. The analysis was limited to patients who did not have a prior transplant. In the autologous group, no difference was found when ciprofloxacin prophylaxis was used routinely (n=155): 93.6 (95% CI: 88.3–96.5) versus ciprofloxacin prophylaxis not used (n=112): 94.1 (95% CI: 88.1–97.2). Likewise, no difference was found in the allogenic group when ciprofloxacin prophylaxis used routinely (n=135): 88.9 (95% CI: 82.3–93.2) versus Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis not used (n=106): 87.7 (95% CI: 79.8–92.7). The incidence of bacteraemia with resistant organisms was not statistically significant in both groups. In the autologous groups the incidence was 2 (18.2%) with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis and 1 (20.0%) without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. In the allogenic group the incidence was 5 (2.8%) with ciprofloxacin prophylaxis and 3 (2.3%) without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis . Overall, in our institution, stopping ciprofloxacin prophylaxis did not significantly affect the incidence of bacteraemia, the 100 days all-cause mortality or the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteraemia among allogenic and autologous transplant patients. As a result, ciprofloxacin prophylaxis has been suspended and a surveillance program has been adopted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207