MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387475784 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20563

Overprescription of antibiotics for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review & meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4387475784 on OpenAlexafffund
Fazle Rabbi, Laura Banfield, Mehnaz Munir, Zain Chagla, Alexandra Mayhew, Russell J. de Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesImpactPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Meta-analysisSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineAntibioticsMEDLINEIntensive care medicineCoronavirus InfectionsMedical physicsPharmacologyVirologyInternal medicineChemistryMicrobiologyBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Empirical use of antibiotics was reported throughout the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, evidence of bacterial coinfection or secondary bacterial infection among COVID-19 patients was sparse. Antibiotic overprescription for COVID-19 patients without confirmed bacterial coinfection can increase antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objective of this study is to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic use during COVID-19 by summarizing the frequency of antibiotic use among hospitalized COVID-19 and the frequency of antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19. Methods A systematic search was conducted of the Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases by generating search terms using the concepts of "COVID-19," "Bacterial Coinfection," "Secondary bacterial infection," and "Antimicrobial resistance" to identify studies reporting antibiotic prescription for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with or without bacterial coinfection. We excluded studies on outpatients, studies informed infection due to mechanical ventilation, and randomized controlled trials. The pooled estimate of the percentage of the total and confirmed appropriate antibiotic prescriptions provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients was generated using a random effect meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting. The study protocol registration DOI is osf.io/d3fpm. Results Of 157,623 participants from 29 studies (11 countries, 45 % women) included in our review, antibiotics were prescribed to 67 % of participants (CI 64 %–71 %, P < 0·001), of which 80 % (CI 76 %–83 %, P < 0·001) of prescriptions were for COVID-19 patients without confirmed bacterial coinfections. Antibiotic overprescription varied during different periods of the pandemic and between High-Income and Upper and Lower Middle-Income Countries. We found heterogeneity among the studies ( I 2 = 100 %). The risk of bias analysis showed that 100 % of the included studies had the proper sample framing, and we are at low risk of bias due to sampling. Discussion We find greater than expected use of antibiotics to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients without bacterial coinfections, which may contribute to AMR globally. Concrete guidelines for using antibiotics to treat COVID-19 patients, strict monitoring, and administering Antimicrobial Stewardship are needed to prevent overprescription.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207