MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778833120 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002953

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Procalcitonin-Guidance Versus Usual Care for Antimicrobial Management in Critically Ill Patients: Focus on Subgroups Based on Antibiotic Initiation, Cessation, or Mixed Strategies*

2017· review· en· W2778833120 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W. Lam, Seth R. Bauer, Robert Fowler, Abhijit Duggal

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcalcitoninMedicineMeta-analysisAntibioticsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCritically illMEDLINESepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies have evaluated the use of procalcitonin guidance during different phases of antibiotics management (initiation, cessation, or a combination of both) in patients admitted to ICUs. Several meta-analyses have attempted to generate an overall effect of procalcitonin-guidance on patient outcomes. However, combining studies from different phases of antibiotics management may not be appropriate due to the risk of clinical heterogeneity. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of procalcitonin-guided strategies in different phases of antibiotics use. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until November 1, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated procalcitonin guidance compared with usual care for management of antibiotics in critically ill adult patients. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted study details, patient characteristics, procalcitonin algorithm, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies, from 1,624 abstracts identified based on our search strategy (three initiation, nine cessation, and three mixed). The pooled risk ratio for short-term mortality for the initiation, cessation, and mixed procalcitonin strategies were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.86-1.15,;p = 0.91), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.98; p = 0.02), and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.80-1.29; p = 0.93), respectively. Procalcitonin for cessation and mixed strategies was associated with decrease antibiotics duration (-1.26 d [p < 0.001] and -3.10 d [p =0.04], respectively). No differences were observed in other outcome measures. CONCLUSION: When evaluating all studies of procalcitonin-guided antibiotics management in critically ill patients, no difference in short-term mortality was observed. However, when only examining procalcitonin-guided cessation of antibiotics, lower mortality was detected. Future studies should focus specifically on procalcitonin for the cessation of antibiotics in critically ill patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207