MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017846458 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01353-2

Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral resection of bladder tumours: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3017846458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathrin Bausch, Soheila Aghlmandi, Sarah Ursula Sutter, Linda Maria Stamm, Hannah Ewald, Christian Appenzeller‐Herzog, Andreas F. Widmer, Hans‐Helge Seifert

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBacteriuriaAntibiotic prophylaxisMeta-analysisMEDLINEUrinary systemSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialRegimenPlaceboIntensive care medicineAntibiotic resistanceAsymptomaticPublication biasAntibioticsSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis for postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) after transurethral resection of bladder tumours is controversial. This potentially leads to the overuse of antibiotic prophylaxis and rising antimicrobial resistance rates. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the impact of different antimicrobial prophylaxis schemes versus placebo on the prevention of postoperative UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria. METHODS: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized (e.g. cohort, case-control) studies examining any form of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with transurethral resection of bladder tumours. Literature searches will be conducted in several electronic databases (from inception onwards), including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Grey literature will be identified through searching conference abstracts. The primary outcome will be postoperative urinary tract infections. The secondary outcome will be asymptomatic bacteriuria. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using appropriate tools (e.g. Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If feasible, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis of outcome data. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. study design, publication year, the setting of the study, and antibiotics regimen). We will also search, identify, and discuss potential risk factors for urinary tract infections following transurethral resection of bladder tumours. This may serve as basis for a scoping review. DISCUSSION: In times of rising antimicrobial resistance rates, sound evidence on the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis is essential for implementation into guideline recommendations and for decision-making in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019131733.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.028
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.005

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207