MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567088613 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1470

DUE Diligence: Using Drug Use Evaluations of Ciprofloxacin and Meropenem to Identify Opportunities for Antimicrobial Stewardship at a Pediatric Tertiary Care Facility

2016· article· en· W2567088613 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime Mcdonald, Baldwin Toye, Jessica Dunn, Jennifer Bowes, Annie Pouliot, Nicole Le Saux

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntimicrobial stewardshipMeropenemMedicineIntensive care medicineCiprofloxacinAntimicrobialDiligenceCefepimeAntimicrobial drugAntibioticsMicrobiologyAntibiotic resistanceImipenem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Drug use evaluations (DUEs) can provide information on antimicrobial prescribing patterns within a hospital. At our institution, we believed that ciprofloxacin and meropenem use would be limited to microbiologically confirmed or classically recommended indications as both agents have restricted use criteria. A DUE of meropenem and ciprofloxacin was conducted to assess hospital-wide use of these agents. Methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients receiving greater than 48 hours of ciprofloxacin or meropenem between January 1 and December 31, 2015. Data was abstracted from electronic and paper charts using standardized case report forms. Each prescription was reviewed independently by 2 infectious disease physicians (including one trained in microbiology). Based on clinical syndrome, microbiology, past infecting pathogens and medical history, each prescription was assessed as having a definite, possible or no indication. Results. A total of 60 courses of ciprofloxacin and 34 courses of meropenem were assessed. For meropenem, 41.2% (n = 14) had a definite, 17.6 % (n = 6) had a possible and 41.2% (n = 14) had no indication. For ciprofloxacin, 28.3 % (n = 17) had a definite, 21.7 % (n = 13) had a possible and 50 % (n = 30) had no indication. For meropenem prescriptions with no indication, 7 of 14 (50%) were started in the PICU, mostly for lower respiratory (n = 2), abdominal (n = 2) and central nervous system (n = 2) indications. For ciprofloxacin prescriptions without an indication, 43% (n = 13) were prescribed by general surgery and 77% (n = 10) of these were for appendicitis. All patients on meropenem had at least one bacterial culture performed at the time of prescribing, compared to only 41 (68.3%) patients on ciprofloxacin. Conclusion. Only one-third of prescriptions for meropenem and ciprofloxacin were deemed to be definitively indicated. At our institution, empiric meropenem use without adequate microbiological data should be addressed. ASP efforts focusing on the use of ciprofloxacin for appendicitis and the role of intraoperative cultures in general surgery are indicated. DUEs of broad-spectrum agents are helpful in identifying “covert” antimicrobial use. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207