Modified Reporting of Positive Urine Cultures to Reduce Inappropriate Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria Among Nonpregnant, Noncatheterized Inpatients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DESIGNWe conducted a randomized, parallel, unblinded, superiority trial of a laboratory reporting intervention designed to reduce antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).METHODSResults of positive urine cultures from 110 consecutive inpatients at 2 urban acute-care hospitals were randomized to standard report (control) or modified report (intervention). The standard report included bacterial count, bacterial identification, and antibiotic susceptibility information including drug dosage and cost. The modified report stated: "This POSITIVE urine culture may represent asymptomatic bacteriuria or urinary tract infection. If urinary tract infection is suspected clinically, please call the microbiology laboratory … for identification and susceptibility results." We used the following exclusion criteria: age <18 years, pregnancy, presence of an indwelling urinary catheter, samples from patients already on antibiotics, neutropenia, or admission to an intensive care unit. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of appropriate antibiotic therapy prescribed.RESULTSAccording to our intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the proportion of appropriate treatment (urinary tract infection treated plus ASB not treated) was higher in the modified arm than in the standard arm: 44 of 55 (80.0%) versus 29 of 55 (52.7%), respectively (absolute difference, -27.3%; RR, 0.42; P = .002; number needed to report for benefit, 3.7).CONCLUSIONSModified reporting resulted in a significant reduction in inappropriate antibiotic treatment without an increase in adverse events. Safety should be further assessed in a large effectiveness trial before implementationTRIAL REGISTRATION. clinicaltrials.gov#NCT02797613Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;814-819.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".