MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Short-course versus long-course intravenous therapy with the same antibiotic for severe community-acquired pneumonia in children aged two months to 59 months

2015· review· en· W4249397268 on OpenAlexaff
Zohra S Lassi, Aamer Imdad, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumoniaPediatricsCommunity-acquired pneumoniaReferralIntensive care medicineInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia remains the single leading cause of childhood mortality, causing an estimated 1.3 million childhood deaths each year in children under the age of five years. The greater burden of disease occurs in low-income countries, where medical resources and hospital-based management are poor. The World Health Organization (WHO) current evidence summaries recommend intravenous antibiotics for five days as first-line treatment for severe pneumonia. Although there is controversy around the specificity of clinical features in the diagnosis of pneumonia, the criteria for the diagnosis of severe pneumonia are better defined and widely used to triage children for referral and second-line therapy.Approximately 120 million new cases of pneumonia occur globally each year in children under five years of age, of which 14 million progress to severe episodes. Hospitalisation for severe pneumonia in children places a significant burden on both patients and their families, including substantial expense, loss of routine and decrease in quality of life. By reducing the duration of treatment in the hospital, this burden could potentially be lessened and possibly lead to better treatment compliance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of short-course (two to three days) versus long-course (five days) intravenous therapy with the same antibiotic for severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children aged two months to 59 months. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 4, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of short-course (two to three days) versus long-course (five days) intravenous antibiotic therapy for severe pneumonia in children aged two months to 59 months. We excluded children with any other debilitating disease, including those infected with HIV and we excluded children with signs and symptoms of very severe pneumonia (i.e. unable to drink or breast feed, vomiting, lethargic, unconscious, convulsing, central cyanosis, severe respiratory distress or clinically severe malnutrition). We also excluded children who had developed pneumonia during their hospital stay (i.e. with nosocomial infection). There was no restriction on the type of antibiotic used, the dose or the frequency of dosing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2352 studies, however none fulfilled our pre-defined inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any RCTs comparing a short course (two to three days) of intravenous antibiotics compared to a long course (five days) for severe pneumonia in children aged two to 59 months.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207