Combined influence of practice guidelines and prospective audit and feedback stewardship on antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and empyema in children: 2012 to 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aminopenicillins are recommended empiric therapy for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The aim of the study was to assess treatment over a 5-year period after CAP guideline publication and introduction of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP). METHODS: Using ICD-10 discharge codes for pneumonia, children less than 18 years admitted to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016 were identified. Children ≥ 2 months with consolidation were included. One day of therapy (DOT) was one or more doses of an antimicrobial given for 1 day. RESULTS: detected. Mean DOT/1,000 patient days of aminopenicillins/penicillin (AAP) increased by 18.1% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.2, 39.9%) and decreased by 37.6% per year (95% CI -56.1, -11.3%) for second- and third-generation cephalosporins in the post-ASP period. The duration of discharge antimicrobials decreased. Of 74 (10.4%) patients who had pleural fluid drained, 35 (47.3%) received more than 5 days of AAP and ≤ 5 days of second-/third-generation cephalosporins with no difference in median length of stay nor mean duration of antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of CAP management guidelines followed by prospective audit and feedback stewardship was associated with a sustained decrease in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in childhood CAP. Use of AAP should also be strongly considered in patients with effusions (even if no pathogen is identified), as clinical outcome appears similar to patients treated with broad-spectrum antimicrobials.
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 | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".