MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283727067 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057241

Protocol for a systematic review on routine use of antibiotics for infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure/faltering

2022· review· en· W4283727067 on OpenAlexaff
Aamer Imdad, Fanny F Chen, Melissa François, Emily E. Tanner‐Smith, Abigail Smith, Olivia Tsistinas, Jai K Das, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)PediatricsAntibioticsIntensive care medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotics have been used as an adjunct in treating children with severe acute malnutrition 6-59 months of age; however, the data for infants less than 6 months are scarce. The WHO recently started guideline development for preventing and treating wasting, including growth failure/faltering in infants less than 6 months. This systematic review commissioned by WHO aims to synthesise evidence from current literature on the effectiveness of antibiotics for infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure/faltering. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for studies that assessed the effect of antibiotics in the treatment of infants with growth faltering. We will search multiple electronic databases. We will include randomised control trials and non-randomised studies with a control arm. The study population is infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure. The intervention group will be infants who received no antibiotics or antibiotics other than recommended in 2013 guidelines by WHO to treat severe acute malnutrition in children. The comparison group will be infants who received antibiotics according to the 2013 guideline by WHO. We will consider the following outcomes: mortality, clinical deterioration, antimicrobial resistance, recovery from comorbidity, adverse events, markers of intestinal inflammation, markers of systemic inflammation, hospital-acquired infections, non-response. We will use the meta-analysis to pool the studies where applicable. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to reporting the overall evidence quality for an outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a systematic review and will not involve contact with a human subject. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-review journal and will guide the WHO's recommendation for the use of antibiotics in infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021277073.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.021
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.016

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→