A Retrospective Analysis of Practice Patterns in the Treatment of Methicillin‐Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Skin and Soft Tissue Infections at Three Canadian Tertiary Care Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are increasingly being encountered and pose an increasing burden to the health care system in Canada. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate and characterize the factors influencing the current MRSA treatment patterns in patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) before linezolid became available on the Canadian market. METHODS: A retrospective study collected demographic, treatment and resource use data on patients hospitalized at one of three geographically distinct tertiary care facilities, where MRSA SSTI treatment was initiated with intravenous (IV) vancomycin. Analysis of opportunities for IV-to-oral switch therapy was based on eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Of 89 patients identified over a 43-month period, the mean (+/-SD) durations of anti-infective treatment and hospitalization were 22.4+/-21 days and 28.9+/-20.8 days, respectively. An infected surgical wound was most common, representing 62.9% of infections. The mean duration of vancomycin treatment was 19.5 days and the mean number of 1 g doses received was 29.0+/-32.9. The majority of patients (55.1%) initiated vancomycin therapy a mean of 5.4+/-8.9 days after confirmation of MRSA. Of the 70% of patients meeting criteria for IV-to-oral switch therapy, only 10% received oral treatment. The most common reason cited for not switching was lack of an effective oral alternative. Analysis of switch therapy criteria found that IV treatment continued for a mean of 13 days despite the appropriateness of the oral route. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation exists in treatment patterns for MRSA infections. Improvements in the initiation of therapy and the use of IV-to-oral switch therapy may improve care and reduce the duration of hospitalization for MRSA SSTIs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".