International Practice Patterns of Antibiotic Therapy and Laboratory Testing in Bronchiolitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: International patterns of antibiotic use and laboratory testing in bronchiolitis in emergency departments are unknown. Our objective is to evaluate variation in the use of antibiotics and nonindicated tests in infants with bronchiolitis in 38 emergency departments in Pediatric Emergency Research Networks in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and Spain and Portugal. We hypothesized there would be significant variation, adjusted for patient characteristics. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort study of previously healthy infants aged 2 to 12 months with bronchiolitis. Variables examined included network, poor feeding, dehydration, nasal flaring, chest retractions, apnea, saturation, respiratory rate, fever, and suspected bacterial infection. Outcomes included systemic antibiotic administration and urine, blood, or viral testing or chest radiography (CXR). RESULTS: In total, 180 of 2359 (7.6%) infants received antibiotics, ranging from 3.5% in the United Kingdom and Ireland to 11.1% in the United States. CXR (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.6–3.2), apnea (aOR 2.2; 1.1–3.5), and fever (aOR 2.4; 1.7–3.4) were associated with antibiotic use, which did not vary across networks (P = .15). In total, 768 of 2359 infants (32.6%) had ≥1 nonindicated test, ranging from 12.7% in the United Kingdom and Ireland to 50% in Spain and Portugal. Compared to the United Kingdom and Ireland, the aOR (confidence interval) results for testing were Canada 5.75 (2.24–14.76), United States 4.14 (1.70–10.10), Australia and New Zealand 2.25 (0.86–5.74), and Spain and Portugal 3.96 (0.96–16.36). Testing varied across networks (P < .0001) and was associated with suspected bacterial infections (aOR 2.12; 1.30–2.39) and most respiratory distress parameters. Viral testing (591 of 768 [77%]) and CXR (507 of 768 [66%]) were obtained most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of antibiotic use in bronchiolitis was low across networks and was associated with CXR, fever, and apnea. Nonindicated testing was common outside of the United Kingdom and Ireland and varied across networks irrespective of patient characteristics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".