MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401219577 · doi:10.1542/peds.2024-066588h

Efficacy of Antibiotic Regimens for Meningitis in Young Infants Aged 0–59 Days: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4401219577 on OpenAlexaff
Sitarah Mathias, Krysten North, Carl Britto, Alastair Fung, Roger Chou, Karen Edmond, Anne CC Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialRegimenPopulationPediatricsAmpicillinConfidence intervalMeningitisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAntibioticsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Meningitis is associated with high mortality risk in young infants, yet the optimal treatment regimen is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic regimens to treat meningitis in young infants aged 0 to 59 days on critical clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane Central Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of young infants with meningitis (population) comparing the efficacy of antibiotic regimens (interventions) with alternate regimens (control) on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data on study characteristics and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 1088 studies screened, only 2 RCTs were identified. They included 168 infants from 5 countries and were conducted between 1976 and 2015. Neither study compared current World Health Organization-recommended regimens. One multisite trial from 4 countries compared intrathecal gentamicin plus systemic ampicillin/gentamicin to systemic ampicillin/gentamicin and found no difference in mortality (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.53; 1 trial, n = 98, very low certainty of evidence) or adverse events (no events in either trial arm). Another trial in India compared a 10-day versus 14-day course of antibiotics and found no difference in mortality (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.53; 1 trial, n = 98, very low certainty of evidence) or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data on the efficacy of antibiotic regimens in young infant meningitis are scarce. Rigorous RCTs are needed to inform recommendations for optimal antibiotic regimens for meningitis treatment in this vulnerable population, particularly within the context of changing epidemiology and increasing antimicrobial resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207