Comparing Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics Administration for Cellulitis Infection: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cellulitis is defined as an infection of the skin that is usually characterized by localized but poorly demarcated areas of erythema, swelling, and pain. Erysipelas is a subtype of cellulitis that is characterized by a more superficial infection, often involving the face. Because gram-positive bacteria are the most common infective agent, beta-lactam antibiotics such as cephalosporins are commonly used. However, guidelines and physician preference vary widely as different antibiotic options and routes of administration exist, in addition to the fact that most cases are treated empirically without microbiological lab guidance. This lack of standardization in evidence, guidelines, and physician practice prompted this systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomized trial data and cohort studies to aggregate the currently available evidence for the optimal routes of antibiotic administration in cellulitis treatment. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of our review is to compare the efficacy of oral versus intravenous antibiotic administration for cellulitis infections, thereby providing clinicians with evidence-based guidelines for treatment. METHODS We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through Ovid as well as Web of Science and CINAHL for all available literature comparing different routes of antibiotic administration in the treatment of cellulitis and erysipelas. We will perform title and abstract as well as full-text screening in duplicate according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and then extract the relevant data using a prepiloted data sheet. The primary outcome for our review is the duration of infection resolution, and secondary outcomes such as incidence of sepsis, mortality, hospital admission, and Clostridium difficile infection. We will assess the risk of bias in our included studies using the RoB 2.0 (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (Risk of bias in non-randomized studies for interventions) tools, with a final quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework and a sensitivity analysis to examine heterogeneity. RESULTS We will publish the final results of our systematic review in a peer-reviewed academic journal. This project received no funding or financial assistance. Data analysis is currently underway, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in late November 2023. CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, this will be the most up-to-date review of the best available evidence comparing different routes of antibiotic administration for cellulitis. Because of the vast selection of antibiotic options available and the empirical nature of the treatment, we anticipate heterogeneity within our data but nonetheless hope to provide aggregated evidence on the efficacy of intravenous versus oral administration of antibiotics in cellulitis treatment. We hope the results from this study will better inform physician practices in the future for cellulitis infections. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/48342
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 | 0.048 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.005 |
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".