MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789249786 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.317

A316 ANTIMICROBIAL LOCKS FOR THE PREVENTION OF CATHETER-RELATED BLOOD STREAM INFECTIONS (CRBSI) IN PATIENTS ON PARENTERAL NUTRITION (PN)– A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2018· review· en· W2789249786 on OpenAlexaff
Yidan Lu, Carlotta Palumbo, Marc O. Martel, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialAntimicrobialSystematic reviewPopulationInternal medicineBacteremiaMeta-analysisCatheterIntensive care medicineMEDLINESurgeryMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CRBSI are serious complications for patients on PN. Antimicrobial lock solutions have been used as a prophylaxis against CRBSI, however their efficacy in the PN population is unclear. To conduct a systematic review on the efficacy of antimicrobial lock solutions to prevent CRBSI in patients on PN. We performed a systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Knowledge (from earliest date to December 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial locks compared to control solutions (heparin or saline) to prevent CRBSI in adult and pediatric PN patients. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Critical appraisal of possible bias was performed using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool (RCT) and ROBINS-I (observational studies). The literature search identified 771 citations, 112 were reviewed in full, and 19 studies were selected, totaling 536 patients, including 9 pediatric (122 patients) and 10 adult (414 patients) studies. Nine studies assessed an ethanol lock solution, 9 taurolidine, and 1 gentamycin. Two open-labeled RCT were included, both using taurolidine (Klek and Bisseling). The remaining studies were observational, and employed a pre- and post-design at moderate to high risk of bias. Methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of the data by meta-analysis. All studies, except one by Klek who used taurolidine in low-risk patients, report lower CRBSI rate in the treatment group (ethanol, taurolidine ± citrate, and gentamycin lock) compared to controls (heparin or saline). The negative trial by Klek et al. documented 1 CRBSI (0.273/1000 catheter-days) in the taurolidine plus citrate arm, and none in the taurolidine or control arms (p=1.000). This finding is in contrast to Bisseling et al. who reported lower CRBSI rates (0.19 versus 2.02 CRBSI/1000 catheter-days, p=0.008), and longer mean infection-free survival in the taurolidine arm (641 (95% CI 556–727) vs 175 (95% CI 85–266) days, log-rank p<0.0001 in the control group (heparin)). Amongst the observational studies, catheter infection rates ranged from 0 to 14.3 CRBSI/1000 catheter-days for antimicrobial locks vs 3.53 to 26.5 CRBSI/1000 catheter-days in the controls. The calculated CRBSI rate ratios of intervention vs control groups are all <1 (range 0–0.54), suggesting a protective effect attributable to antimicrobial lock solutions as prevention of CRBSI, most pronounced in taurolidine studies. Pooled results would appear to support the use of antimicrobial lock solution as prophylaxis for CRBSI in PN patients, yet are limited by low study quality and modest sample sizes. High quality studies are needed to confirm these findings, and define optimal parameters for their use. FRQS, AGEQ

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→