Beta-Lactam Allergy Association with Surgical Site Infections in Pediatric Procedures: A Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about surgical site infection (SSI) risk among pediatric patients with reported beta-lactam allergy (BLA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a quaternary children's hospital and compared procedures in patients ages 1-19 years old with and without BLA that required antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) during 2010-2017. Procedures were matched 1:1 by patient age, complex chronic conditions, year of surgery, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program current procedural terminology category. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by National Healthcare Safety Network. The secondary outcome was AMP protocol compliance as per American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. RESULTS: Of the 11 878 procedures identified, 1021 (9%) had a reported BLA. There were 35 (1.8%) SSIs in the matched cohort of 1944 procedures with no significant difference in SSI rates in BLA procedures (1.8%) compared to no-BLA (1.9%) procedures. Tier 3 AMP was chosen more frequently among BLA procedures (P < .01). Unmatched analysis of all procedures showed that 23.7% of BLA procedures received beta-lactam-AMP (vs. 93.7% of procedures without BLA). There were no major differences in SSI on sensitivity analysis of BLA procedures that did not receive beta-lactam AMP (1.4%) compared to no-BLA procedures with beta-lactam AMP (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective matched analysis of 1944 pediatric procedures found no increase in SSIs in procedures with reported BLA, which differs from studies in adults. We observed that the choice of beta-lactam-AMP was common, even in BLA procedures. More data are needed to delineate an association between non-beta-lactam AMP and SSI in children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".