MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406944927 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.1848

P-1682. Evaluation of Antibiotic Prescribing Practices for Pediatric Acute Otitis Media and Community-Acquired Pneumonia in an Emergency Department

2025· article· en· W4406944927 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dara Petel, Gregory Harvey, Olivia Ostrow, Kathryn Timberlake, Michelle Science

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAcute otitis mediaPneumoniaCommunity-acquired pneumoniaAntibioticsOtitisIntensive care medicineBacterial pneumoniaPediatricsInternal medicineMicrobiologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Acute otitis media (AOM) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are common reasons for antibiotic prescriptions in children. As a result, antimicrobial stewardship efforts ensuring evidence-informed antibiotic prescriptions may be impactful. The objective of this study was to assess whether antibiotic prescriptions for AOM and CAP in a pediatric emergency department (ED) are consistent with current guidelines, and to identify opportunities for improvement. Duration of antibiotics prescribed for acute otitis media Bar graph depicting prescribed durations of therapy for acute otitis media, Prescriptions consistent with current guideline recommendations are in blue, while those that aren’t are in orange. Guidelines advise 10 days, rather than 5 days, of antibiotic therapy for children <2, perforated otitis media, treatment failure and recurrent otitis media. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions for AOM and CAP in the ED of a pediatric hospital from September 2022 to September 2023. Patients ages 0 – 18 years discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of AOM or CAP were identified using the electronic medical record system. Exclusion criteria included absence of a new antibiotic prescription, concomitant infections requiring antibiotic treatment, hospital admission, and patients with immunocompromising conditions or medications. Prescriptions were considered consistent with guidelines if they followed the Canadian Paediatric Society recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Duration of antibiotics prescribed for community-acquired pneumonia Bar graph depicting prescribed durations of therapy for community-acquired pneumonia. Prescriptions consistent with current guideline recommendations are in blue, while those that aren’t are in orange. Results A total of 1143 and 765 cases of AOM and CAP were included, respectively. Of the prescriptions for AOM, 688 (60%) were consistent with current guidelines. The 454 prescriptions that were not guideline-consistent were due to duration (n=281, 62%, Figure 1), dosing interval (n=142, 31%), antibiotic selection (n=74, 16%), and dose (n=38, 8.4%). Deferred prescriptions were provided to 177 (16%) patients; an additional 139 (12%) were eligible, but prescribed treatment. For CAP, 146 (19%) prescriptions were consistent with current guidelines. Of the 618 prescriptions that were not consistent, the majority were due to duration (n=576, 92%, Figure 2), dosing interval (n=134, 22%), antibiotic selection (n=38, 6%) and dose (n=14, 2%). Conclusion A significant number of patients with AOM (40%) and CAP (79%) were given antibiotic prescriptions that were not consistent with current guideline recommendations, with the most common reason being prolonged duration. This identifies an important antimicrobial stewardship opportunity in the ED and likely other outpatient settings. Disclosures Kathryn E. Timberlake, PharmD, Avir Pharma: Advisor/Consultant|Sanofi: Honoraria|Wolters Kluwer: Advisor/Consultant

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207