A systematic review of dalbavancin efficacy as a sequential therapy for infective endocarditis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dalbavancin is an antibiotic characterized by an extended half-life and efficacy against methicillin-resistant Staphylococci. Currently, there are only narrative reviews summarizing the evidence about the use of dalbavancin for infective endocarditis (IE), many of which are focused primarily on its use as consolidation therapy. For this reason, we conducted a systematic review to describe the clinical efficacy and the safety of dalbavancin in IE treatment. METHODS: We searched for available evidence using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science libraries, with no restrictions regarding the publication year. The risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for the comparative studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for descriptive studies. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. All of them were observational. Native valve endocarditis was the most common kind of IE found in the studies' populations (128/263, 48.7%), followed by prosthetic valve endocarditis, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device-related endocarditis. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci were the most common pathogens isolated (83/269, 30.1%), followed by S. aureus, Enterococci spp and Streptococci spp. Five out of nine studies documented a clinical failure rate of less than 10%. Dalbavancin showed a favourable safety profile. Dalbavancin appears to be a promising option for the consolidation therapy of IE. However, further studies comparing dalbavancin with standard of care are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023430032.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it