MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400657272 · doi:10.1007/s11096-024-01768-0

Clinical management protocols for community pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections: a review of the grey literature and quality appraisal

2024· review· en· W4400657272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mitchell Budden, Daniel Gilbertson, Sean Chung, Shalom I. Benrimoj, Francisco Mardones, Sarah Dineen‐Griffin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNewcastle University
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistPharmacyUrinary systemClinical pharmacyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections has been introduced as a service in the United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, New Zealand, and Australia. The management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections by community pharmacists has gained increasing attention as a potential avenue to alleviate the burden on primary healthcare services. AIM: The objectives of the review were to: (1) identify protocols for community pharmacist management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women aged 16-65 years; (2) outline their key components; and (3) appraise the quality of protocols. METHOD: A grey literature search was undertaken for protocols intended for use by community pharmacists for the management of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women aged 16-65 years, met the definition of a clinical management protocol and written in English. Their quality was appraised using the Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version II instrument. RESULTS: Forty of the 274 records screened were included. Content analysis identified ten key components: common signs/symptoms, differential diagnosis, red flags/referral, choice of empirical antibiotic therapy, nonprescription medications, nonpharmacological/self-care advice, patient eligibility criteria, patient follow-up, dipstick testing recommendations, and recommendations on antimicrobial resistance. The lowest scoring domains in the quality assessment were 'Editorial Independence' and 'Rigour of Development'. Only four protocols were deemed high-quality. CONCLUSION: The review demonstrates that clinical management protocols for pharmacist-led management of urinary tract infections consist of similar recommendations, despite variation in international practice. However, the findings highlight a deficiency in the quality of most clinical management protocols governing pharmacist-led urinary tract infection management.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.380
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PharmacySame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207