Short Intravenous Antibiotic Courses for Urinary Infections in Young Infants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in young infants, yet there is no guidance on the optimal duration of intravenous (IV) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine if shorter IV antibiotic courses (≤7 days) are appropriate for managing UTIs in infants aged ≤90 days. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase (February 2021) were used as data sources. Included studies reported original data for infants aged ≤90 days with UTIs, studied short IV antibiotic durations (≤7 days), and described at least 1 treatment outcome. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Studies were screened by 2 investigators, and bias was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 16 615 young infants were included. The largest 2 studies on bacteremic UTI found no difference in the rates of 30-day recurrence between those treated with ≤7 vs >7 days of IV antibiotics. For nonbacteremic UTI, there was no significant difference in the adjusted 30-day recurrence between those receiving ≤3 vs >3 days of IV antibiotics in the largest 2 studies identified. Three studies of infants aged ≥30 days used oral antibiotics alone and reported good outcomes, although only 85 infants were ≤90 days old. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter IV antibiotic courses of ≤7 days and ≤3 days with early switch to oral antibiotics should be considered in infants aged ≤90 days with bacteremic and nonbacteremic UTI, respectively, after excluding meningitis. Further studies of treatment with oral antibiotics alone are needed in this age group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".