MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376637647 · doi:10.1089/mdr.2022.0248

Tigecycline-Containing Regimens and Multi Drug-Resistant <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i> : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4376637647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobial Drug Resistance · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTigecyclineMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisAcinetobacter baumanniiObservational studyConfidence intervalAcinetobacterSystematic reviewMEDLINEAntibioticsMicrobiologyBiologyPseudomonas aeruginosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The use of tigecycline (TG) for the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii is controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to better explore the safety and efficacy of TG for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting the clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of regimens containing TG in patients with drug susceptibility testing (DST)-confirmed MDR A. baumannii , published until December 30, 2022. Observational studies were included if they reported clinical and microbiological efficacy of TG-based regimens. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Joana Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool were used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: There were 30 observational studies, of which 19 studies were cohort and 11 studies were single group studies. Pooled clinical response and failure rates in the TG-containing regimens group were 58.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.2–66.6) and 40.2 (95% CI 31.1–50.0), respectively. The pooled microbiological response rate was 32.1 (95% CI 19.8–47.5), and the pooled all-cause mortality rate was 41.1 (95% CI 34.1–48.4). Pooled clinical response and failure rates in the colistin-based regimens group were 52.7 (42.7–62.5) and 43.1 (33.1–53.8), respectively. The pooled microbiological response rate was 42.9 (16.2–74.5), and the pooled all-cause mortality rate was 34.3 (26.1–43.5). Conclusions: According to our results, the efficacy of the TG-based regimen is the same as other antibiotics. However, our study showed a high mortality rate and a lower rate of microbiological eradication for TG compared with colistin-based regimen. Therefore, our study does not recommend it for the treatment of MDR A. baumannii . However, this was a prevalence meta-analysis of observational studies, and for better conclusion experimental studies are required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it