MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235762354 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/9feh5

Impact of vaccination on antibiotic usage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W4235762354 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Buckley, Nicholas Henschke, Hanna Bergman, Becky Skidmore, Elizabeth Klemm, Gemma Villanueva, Chantelle Garritty, Mical Paul

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialObservational studyCochrane LibraryPediatricsPopulationVaccinationPlaceboInternal medicineRate ratioAntibioticsConfidence intervalAlternative medicineImmunologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Vaccines may reduce antibiotic use and the development of resistance.Objectives: To provide a comprehensive, up-to-date assessment of the evidence base relating to the effect of vaccines on antibiotic use.Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO Trials Registry.Study eligibility criteria: Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published January 1998 to March 2018.Participants: Any population.Interventions: Vaccines versus placebo, no vaccine or another vaccine.Methods: Titles, abstracts, and full-texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Certainty of RCT evidence was assessed using GRADE.Results: 4980 records identified; 895 full-text reports assessed; 96 studies included (24 RCTs, 72 observational). There was high certainty evidence that influenza vaccine reduces days of antibiotic use among healthy adults (1 RCT; n = 4253; rate reduction 28·1% [95% CI 16·0, 38·4]); moderate certainty evidence that influenza vaccines probably reduce antibiotic use in children aged 6 months to 14 years (3 RCTs; n = 610; ratio of means 0·62 [95% CI 0·54, 0·70) and probably reduces community antibiotic use in children aged 3-15 years (1 RCT; n = 10,985 person-seasons; risk ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·58, 0·83]); moderate certainty evidence that pneumococcal vaccination probably reduces antibiotic use in children aged 6 weeks to 6 years (2 RCTs; n = 47,945; rate ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·87, 0·99]) and reduces illness episodes requiring antibiotics in children aged 12-35 months (1 RCT; n = 264; rate ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·75, 0·97]). Other RCT evidence was of low or very low certainty, and observational evidence was affected by confounding. Conclusions: The evidence base is poor. Although some vaccines may reduce antibiotic use, collection of high-quality data in future vaccine trials is needed to improve the evidence base. Funding: Wellcome TrustPROSPERO registration: CRD42018103881

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.052
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.361
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→