A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Associated with Dosing Metronidazole Every 8 Hours Versus Every 12-Hours: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Metronidazole treats obligate anaerobic bacterial and protozoal infections, with an elimination half-life of around eight hours. The long elimination half-life, the favorable ratio of steady-state serum levels to minimum inhibitory concentration, and the presence of active metabolites lead to consideration of metronidazole use at 12-hour dosage intervals. This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of twice-daily and thrice-daily metronidazole dosing. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to systematically identify all relevant studies published up to June 16, 2023. Results. The final analysis included two published retrospective cohort studies; a single site (n = 200) and a multisite study (n = 85) of ‘good’ quality, as measured by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The reported baseline characteristics of the 8-hour and 12-hour dosing groups were comparable, and neither study identified significant differences in primary and secondary clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis of the need to escalate antibiotic therapy also showed no statistically significant differences using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method (95% CI: 47.6% lower to 6.4 times higher risk, p = 0.342) and inverse-variance method (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.52-6.65, p = 0.336). Conclusions. Dosing metronidazole every 12 hours is as effective as every 8-hour dosing for anaerobic infections. Healthcare systems may consider the adoption of every 12-hour metronidazole dosing with continued evaluation of patient outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".