MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220897119 · doi:10.1111/ctr.14631

What is the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent postoperative infectious complications after liver transplantation? A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations

2022· review· en· W4220897119 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Campos‐Varela, Emily A. Blumberg, Patricia Giorgio, Camille N. Kotton, Faouzi Saliba, Emmanuel Wey, Michael Spiro, Dimitri Aristotle Raptis, Federico Villamil

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos III
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationIntensive care medicineAntimicrobialSystematic reviewTransplantationSurgeryMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is well-accepted in the liver transplant (LT) setting. Nevertheless, optimal regimens to prevent bacterial, viral, and fungal infections are not defined. OBJECTIVES: To identify the optimal antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent post-LT bacterial, fungal, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, to improve short-term outcomes, and to provide international expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021244976. RESULTS: Of 1853 studies screened, 34 were included for this review. Bacterial, CMV, and fungal antimicrobial prophylaxis were evaluated separately. Pneumocystis jiroveccii pneumonia (PJP) antimicrobial prophylaxis was analyzed separately from other fungal infections. Overall, eight randomized controlled trials, 21 comparative studies, and five observational noncomparative studies were included. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended to prevent bacterial, CMV, and fungal infection to improve outcomes after LT. Universal antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to prevent postoperative bacterial infections. The choice of antibiotics should be individualized and length of therapy should not exceed 24 hours (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Both universal prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are strongly recommended for CMV prevention following LT. The choice of one or the other strategy will depend on individual program resources and experiences, as well as donor and recipient serostatus. (Quality of Evidence; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Antifungal prophylaxis is strongly recommended for LT recipients at high risk of developing invasive fungal infections. The drug of choice remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; High | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). PJP prophylaxis is strongly recommended. Length of prophylaxis remains controversial. (Quality of Evidence; Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.013
Bibliometrics0.0130.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207