MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403200264 · doi:10.55633/s3me/092.2024

Early empirical antibiotherapy in patients attended for suspected sepsis in emergency departments: a systematic review

2024· review· es· W4403200264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcelo R Rodríguez, Ferrán Llopis Roca, Rafael Rubio Díaz, D. García, Agustín Julián-Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergencias · 2024
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSepsisEmergency departmentIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyEmergency medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Patients with suspected infections account for 15% to 35% of hospital emergency department (ED) caseloads in Spain and Latin America. The main objective of this systematic review was to compare evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of early (3 hours after triage) vs deferred ($ 3-6 hours) antibiotic therapy prescribed in EDs for adults with serious infections or sepsis. Efficacy and improved clinical course were defined by reduced progression to septic shock and short- and long-term mortality. METHODS: The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, the Web of Sciencie, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for the period from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023. No language restrictions were set. We used the following Medical English Subject Headings and strings: "Antibiotic OR Antibiotic Treatment OR Antibiotic Therapy OR Early Antibiotic Treatment OR Early Antibiotic Therapy," "Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis," "Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department," "Timing," "Early," and "Adults." Observational cohort studies were included. To evaluate quality of research design and risk of bias, we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Case-control studies, narrative reviews and other types of articles were excluded. We completed a narrative review of the findings and did not undertake meta-analysis. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024520687). RESULTS: The search yielded 1528 articles, of which 7 met the criteria for inclusion and analysis. The 7 studies comprised data for 118349 patients, 74141 of whom (62.6%) received early antibiotic treatment. Three studies were classified as high quality, 3 moderate, and 1 low. The 3 high-quality studies provided information on 2 aspects: 1) hospital and short-term mortality and 2) long-term mortality. One high-quality study showed a tendency for hospital and 30-day mortality to increase when antibiotics were administered more than 6 hours after triage vs within 1 hour of triage (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.91-5.59; P = .08). Another reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13; P = .024) for hospital mortality associated with each hour of therapeutic delay after triage. The third study reported that each additional hour of delay after triage was associated with a 10% increase (95% CI, 5%-14%; P .001) in the probability of 360-day mortality. Finally, the single low-quality study reported that each hour of delay in treatment was associated with an odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P .001) for increased risk of septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of antibiotic therapy, preferably within 3 hours of triage, can be recommended in cases of serious infection (sepsis or serious sepsis that do not meet the criteria for septic shock). In fact, based on a tendency for higher short- and long-term mortality associated with delay and a higher probability of developing septic shock with each hour of delay, therapy should start as soon as possible if infection is confirmed or suspected in the absence of an alternative diagnosis.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.320 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergenciasSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207