The antibiotic management of gonorrhoea in Ontario, Canada following multiple changes in guidelines: an interrupted time-series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study assessed adherence with first-line gonorrhoea treatment recommendations in Ontario, Canada, following recent guideline changes due to antibiotic resistance. Methods We used interrupted times-series analyses to analyse treatment data for cases of uncomplicated gonorrhoea reported in Ontario, Canada, between January 2006 and May 2014. We assessed adherence with first-line treatment according to the guidelines in place at the time and the use of specific antibiotics over time. We used the introduction of new recommendations in the Canadian Guidelines for Sexually Transmitted Infections in 2008 and 2011 and the release of the province of Ontario’s Guidelines for the Treatment and Management of Gonococcal Infections in Ontario in 2013 as interruptions in the time-series analysis. Results Overall, 34 287 gonorrhoea cases were reported between 1 January 2006 and 31 May 2014. Treatment data were available for 32 312 (94.2%). Our analysis included 32 272 (94.1%) cases without either a conjunctival or disseminated infection. Following the release of the 2011 recommendations, adherence with first-line recommendations immediately decreased to below 30%. Adherence slowly increased but did not reach baseline levels before the 2013 guidelines were released. Following release of the 2013 guidelines, adherence again decreased; adherence is slowly recovering but by May 2014, was only approximately 60%. Conclusions Due to concerns about antibiotic resistance, gonorrhoea treatment guidelines need to be updated regularly and rapidly adopted in practice. Our study showed poor adherence following dissemination of updated guidelines. Over a year after the latest Ontario guidelines were released, 40% of patients did not receive first-line treatment, putting them at risk of treatment failure and potentially promoting further drug resistance. Greater attention should be devoted to dissemination and implementation of new guidelines.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".