Acute bacterial sinusitis in children: an updated review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the pediatric age group, approximately 7.5% of upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) are complicated by acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS). Despite its prevalence, ABS is often overlooked in young children. The diagnosis and management present unique challenges in primary care. This is an updated narrative review on the evaluation, diagnosis, and management of ABS. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed using the key term 'acute sinusitis'. The search strategy included clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and reviews. The search was restricted to the English literature and children. RESULTS: are the major pathogens in uncomplicated ABS in otherwise healthy children. In complicated ABS, polymicrobial infections are common. The diagnosis of acute sinusitis is mainly clinical and based on stringent criteria, including persistent symptoms and signs of a URI beyond 10 days, without appreciable improvement; a URI with high fever and purulent nasal discharge at onset lasting for at least 3 consecutive days; and biphasic or worsening symptoms. CONCLUSION: Data from high-quality studies on the management of ABS are limited. The present consensus is that amoxicillin-clavulanate, at a standard dose of 45 mg/kg/day orally, is the drug of choice for most cases of uncomplicated ABS in children in whom antibacterial resistance is not suspected. Alternatively, oral amoxicillin 90 mg/kg/day can be administered. For those with severe ABS or uncomplicated acute sinusitis who are at risk for severe disease or antibiotic resistance, oral high-dose amoxicillin-clavulanate (90 mg/kg/day) is the drug of choice.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".