Treatment strategies for cerebrospinal shunt infections: a systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted of studies comparing time to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sterilisation or rate of recurrence with different treatment strategies for CSF shunt infections. METHODS: A librarian-directed search was conducted of Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Medline Daily and Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus with Full Text via EBSCOhost, Scopus Advanced Search, and Web of Science Core Collection from 1990 to May 2019. Studies of any design that compared outcomes in groups of any age with different management strategies were included. Studies that compared complete versus incomplete shunt removal were excluded. Quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search identified 2208 records, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. All were cohort studies of moderate quality. Four studies compared the duration of antibiotics; none demonstrates that a longer course prevented recurrences. Two studies analysed addition of rifampin, with one showing a decrease in recurrences while the other had a small sample size. No studies analysed the addition of intraventricular antibiotics, but one showed equally good results with once versus twice daily administration. One study reported no difference in recurrences with placement of antibiotic-impregnated catheters. Recurrence rates did not differ with shunt replacement minimum of 7 days vs less than 7 days after CSF became sterile. There were no recurrences in either group when shunt replacement was performed after sterile CSF cultures were obtained at 24 vs 48 hours after antibiotics were discontinued. A new shunt entry site did not decrease recurrences. DISCUSSION: The main limitations are the lack of high-quality studies, the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity which precluded meta-analysis. Addition of rifampin for staphylococcal infections may decrease relapse but requires further study.
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 | 0.019 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".