Combination of Ceftriaxone and Ampicillin for the Treatment of Enterococcal Endocarditis: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to review all human trials assessing the efficacy and safety of ampicillin and ceftriaxone for enterococcal endocarditis and to discuss the clinical implications of the findings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1974-), CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched through January 2017 using the search terms ampicillin, penicillin, ceftriaxone, cephalosporin, enterococ*, and endocarditis. Unpublished studies were eligible for inclusion. Additional references were identified from literature citations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Clinical trials in humans that reported on clinical efficacy or adverse outcomes with ceftriaxone and ampicillin therapy in patients with enterococcal endocarditis were included. Case reports, nonhuman, and non-English studies were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four observational clinical studies were identified. One examined the effects of ceftriaxone and ampicillin alone, and 3 compared the therapy to the current standard of care, ampicillin and gentamicin. The studies had small sample sizes and were not adequately designed or powered to establish noninferiority or equivalence to the current standard of care. Rates of clinical cure with ampicillin 2 g every 4 hours and ceftriaxone 2 g every 12 hours were similar to those of ampicillin and gentamicin. Ampicillin and ceftriaxone therapy was well tolerated with low rates of renal failure (0%-33%). CONCLUSION: The evidence to support the use of ampicillin and ceftriaxone for enterococcal endocarditis is not definitive. In the absence of compelling evidence, clinicians may consider ampicillin and ceftriaxone in patients with Enterococcus faecalis infection at high risk for nephrotoxicity or those with aminoglycoside-resistant pathogens.
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 | 0.034 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".