Efficacy and safety of intravenous combined with aerosolised polymyxin versus intravenous polymyxin alone in the treatment of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have questioned the efficacy and safety of intravenous combined with aerosolised (IV + AS) polymyxin versus intravenous (IV) polymyxin alone in the treatment of patients with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial (MDR-GNB) pneumonia. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IV + AS polymyxin in the treatment of MDR-GNB pneumonia. Methods: We identified all relevant studies by searching the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inception to May 31, 2022. All included studies were evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) checklist. The summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to determine the outcome differences between the IV + AS and the IV groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on population, polymyxin dose and kinds of polymyxin. Results: = 0.01) than the IV group. Subgroup analysis revealed that IV + AS polymyxin could reduce mortality only when used in low doses. Simultaneously, the IV + AS group outperformed the IV group in terms of clinical response rate, clinical cure rate, microbiological eradication and duration of mechanical ventilation. The duration of hospitalisation and the incidence of nephrotoxicity did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: IV + AS polymyxin is beneficial in the treatment of MDR-GNB pneumonia. It could lower patient mortality and improve clinical and microbial outcomes without increasing the risk of nephrotoxicity. However, retrospective analysis in the majority of studies and heterogeneity between studies implies that our findings must be interpreted carefully.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".