Preventing respiratory illness in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The overall objective of this rapid overview of reviews (overview hereafter) was to identify evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) for infection control and prevention practices for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settings. Methods Comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org, clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Disease Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were carried out by single reviewers. Results A total of 6 SRs published between 1999 and 2018 were identified and included in the overview. The SRs included between 1 and 37 primary studies representing between 140 to 908 patients. All of the primary studies included in the SRs were carried out in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and examined pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or combined interventions. One high quality SR found mixed results for the effectiveness of hand hygiene to prevent infection (2 studies statistically significant positive results, 1 study non-statistically significant results). One moderate quality SR with meta-analysis found a moderate non-statistically significant effect for personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing infection and found no statistically significant results for the effectiveness of social isolation. One moderate quality SR reported statically significant evidence for the effectiveness of amantadine and amantadine + PPE to prevent infection with respiratory illness in LTCF. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that with antiviral chemoprophylaxis with adamantine is effective in managing respiratory illness in residents of long-term care facilities. The rest of the strategies can be used in long-term care facilities, yet have limited evidence supporting their use from systematic reviews.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".