Fluoroquinolone use for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The United States Food & Drug Administration released an advisory in 2016 that fluoroquinolones be relegated to second-line agents for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) given reports of rare but serious side effects; similar warnings have followed from Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency. The objective was to determine whether alternative non-fluoroquinolone agents are as effective as fluoroquinolones in the treatment of UTIs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative health data from six Canadian provinces. We identified women (n = 1 585 997) receiving antibiotic treatment for episodes of uncomplicated UTIs (n = 2 857 243) between January 1 2005 and December 31 2015. Clinical outcomes within 30 days from the initial antibiotic dispensation were compared among patients treated with a fluoroquinolone versus non-fluoroquinolone agents. High-dimensional propensity score adjustments were used to ensure comparable treatment groups and to minimize residual confounding. RESULTS: Fluoroquinolone use for UTI declined over the study period in five of six Canadian provinces and accounted for 22.3-48.5% of treatments overall. The pooled effect across the provinces indicated that fluoroquinolones were associated with fewer return outpatient visits (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.87-0.92), emergency department visits (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.61-0.89), hospitalizations (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.77-0.88), and repeat antibiotic dispensations (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.75-0.80) within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroquinolones are associated with improved clinical outcomes among women with uncomplicated UTIs. This benefit must be weighed against the risk of fluoroquinolone resistance and rare but serious fluoroquinolone side effects when selecting first-line treatment for these 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".