Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of urinary tract infections in prenatal hydronephrosis: An updated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) is currently recommended to prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in infants with prenatal hydronephrosis (HN), this recommendation is not evidence-based. The objective of this study was to systematically determine whether CAP reduces UTIs in the HN population. METHODS: Applicable trials were identified through an electronic search of MEDLINE (1946-2015), EMBASE (1980-2016), CINAHL (1982-2016), and CENTRAL (1993-2016) and through a hand search of American Urological Association (AUA) (2012-2015) and European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) (2012-2015) abstracts, as well as reference lists of included trials. The search strategy was not limited by language or year of publication. Eligible studies compared CAP to no CAP in patients with antenatal HN, <2 years of age, and reported development of UTI and HN grades. Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screening, full-text review, and quality appraisal. RESULTS: Of 1518 citations screened, 11 were included, contributing 3909 patients for final analysis. Of these, four (36%) were considered high-quality when assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis of the non-randomized trials (n=10) provided similar pooled UTI rates, regardless of CAP use: 9.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-11.4%) for CAP and 7.5% (95% CI 6.4-8.6%) for no CAP. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests there may be value in providing CAP to infants with high-grade HN; however, due to the very low-quality data from non-randomized studies, important clinical variables, such as circumcision status, were unable to be assessed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".