The efficacy and safety of inhaled antibiotics for pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled antibiotics for adults with pneumonia by meta-analysis. METHODS: Literature retrieval was completed through five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus) by the deadline of May 31, 2024. The process of study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of observational studies and randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were evaluated by Newcastle Ottawa scale and Jadad scale, respectively. The primary outcomes included mortality, clinical cure, and microbiological cure. Secondary outcomes were recurrence and renal impairment. RESULTS: There were 30 studies were analyzed, including 12 RCT studies and 18 observational studies. Inhaled antibiotics did not significantly reduce mortality in RCT studies (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.80-1.41). Inhaled antibiotics were associated with higher rates of clinical cure (OR = 1.47 95%CI: 0.82-2.66 in RCT studies and OR = 2.09, 95%CI: 1.36-3.21 in observational studies) and microbiological cure (OR = 7.00 in RCT studies and OR = 2.20 in observational studies). Subgroup analysis showed patients received inhaled antibiotics combined with intravenous administration and inhaled amikacin had better improvements of mortality, clinical cure and microbiological cure. Inhaled antibiotics were not associated with recurrence. The pooled OR of renal impairment were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.27-1.13; I-squared = 43.5 %, P = 0.124) and 0.63(95%CI: 0.26-1.11; I-squared = 69.0 %, P = 0.110) in RCT studies and observational studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled antibiotics decreased risk of renal impairment and achieved significant improvements of clinical and microbiological cure in patients with pneumoniae.
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 | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".