Cefazolin versus anti-staphylococcal penicillins for the treatment of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background For patients with bacteraemia caused by methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or cefazolin are agents of choice. While ASPs are potentially nephrotoxic, cefazolin may be less effective in some S. aureus strains due to an inoculum effect. Objectives To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis assessing current evidence comparing cefazolin with ASPs for patients with S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB). Methods We searched MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and the Cochrane Database as well as clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 26 June 2018. All studies investigating the effects of cefazolin versus ASP in patients with methicillin-sensitive SAB were eligible for inclusion regardless of study design, publication status or language. Additional information was requested by direct author contact. A meta-analysis to estimate relative risks (RRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was estimated using I 2 . The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used for study and data quality assessment. Results Fourteen non-randomized studies were included. Seven reported the primary endpoint (RR 0.71 (0.50, 1.02), low quality of evidence). Cefazolin treatment may be associated with lower 30-day mortality rates (RR 0.70 (0.54, 0.91), low quality of evidence) and less nephrotoxicity (RR 0.36 (0.21, 0.59), (low quality of evidence)). We are uncertain whether cefazolin and ASP differ regarding treatment failure/relapse as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (RR of 0.84 (0.59, 1.18)). For patients with endocarditis (RR 0.71 (0.12, 4.05)) or abscesses (RR 1.17 (0.30, 4.63)), cefazolin treatment may be associated with equal 30-day and 90-day mortality (low quality of evidence). Conclusions Cefazolin seemed to be at least equally as effective as ASPs while being associated with less nephrotoxicity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".