Systematic Review of Antimicrobial Lock Solutions for Prevention of Bacteremia in Pediatric Patients With Intestinal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this systematic review was to determine whether antimicrobial lock (AML) solutions prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) in children with intestinal failure (IF). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (1946-), Ovid Embase (1974-), Wiley Cochrane Library (inception-), and Web of Science Core Collection via Clarivate Analytics (1900-). Randomized and nonrandomized trials, case or cohort studies that studied any AML solution, and used comparator groups were included if they studied children with IF. A meta-analysis compared the rates of CRBSI with AML solutions versus controls, and a Boucher analysis was used to indirectly compare AML solutions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met eligibility criteria (1 open label and 27 observational studies). Quality was good (N = 13), fair (N = 9), and poor (N = 6). All but 4 studied ethanol and taurolidine. Of 15 ethanol studies, 11 reported a decrease and 3 reported a trend toward a decreased incidence of CRBSI compared to controls; 1 reported no difference. Of 9 taurolidine studies, 7 reported a decrease and 2 a trend toward decreased CRBSI rates. There was a decrease in CRBSI with ethanol versus control ( P = 0.008) and with taurolidine-citrate versus control ( P < 0.0005). Using Bucher indirect comparison of the pooled estimates from ethanol versus control to taurolidine versus control, the estimated difference was -0.99 (-4.125, 2.27; P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: There were no randomized trials and over half of the 28 included studies were fair or poor quality. All but 1 reported at least a trend toward reduction in CRBSI. AML solutions appear to prevent CRBSI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".