Ciprofloxacin Alone vs. Ciprofloxacin plus an Aminoglycoside for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following a Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of augmented prophylaxis (ciprofloxacin augmented with an aminoglycoside) compared with that of empirical prophylaxis (ciprofloxacin alone) on transrectal post-prostate biopsy infectious complication (PBIC) rates. A retrospective cohort study evaluated 2835 patients receiving either augmented or empirical prophylactic regimen before undergoing a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between January 2010 and October 2018. The patients were compared according to prophylactic regimen received. The incidence of PBICs and the impact of risk factors were evaluated. A total of 1849 patients received the empirical regimen, and 986 patients received the augmented regimen. The composite PBIC rate was 2.1% (n = 39) and 0.9% (n = 9) (p = 0.019), respectively, and the SIRS rate was 1.9% and 0.8% (p = 0.020), respectively. Of the 50 patients presenting with a PBIC, 29 (58%) had positive cultures (blood and/or urine) for Escherichia coli, of which 28 (97%) were ciprofloxacin-resistant. Taking a fluoroquinolone in the previous 6 months and having a previous urinary tract infection within 1 year prior to the biopsy had significant impact on PBIC rates (p = 0.009 and p = 0.011, respectively). Compared with ciprofloxacin alone, augmented prophylaxis was associated with significantly lower PBICs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".