MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seven vs Fourteen Days of Antibiotics for Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infection

2025· review· en· W4408694076 on OpenAlexaff
Todd C. Lee, Connor Prosty, Michael Fralick, Angela Huttner, Emily G. McDonald, José Molina, Mical Paul, Ruxandra Pinto, Asgar Rishu, Elodie von Dach, Dafna Yahav, Rob Fowler, Nick Daneman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcGill University Health CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData extractionMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskProtocol (science)MEDLINEConfidence intervalInternal medicineAntibioticsPediatricsIntensive care medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Gram-negative bloodstream infections are a common cause of hospitalization. A 2-week duration of antibiotic therapy has been commonly used, but shorter durations may have similar outcomes. Objectives: To assess whether 7 days of antibiotic therapy was noninferior to 14 days. Data Sources: Starting with a 2022 individual patient data meta-analysis, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched to identify additional eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted from May 1, 2022, until November 30, 2024. Study Selection: RCTs involving primarily adults who were hospitalized at the time of Gram-negative bloodstream infection and were allocated to 7 or 14 days of antibiotic therapy. Studies were independently reviewed by 2 investigators. Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Data were extracted by 2 investigators. Any unpublished data were obtained directly from study authors. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data were pooled by separate random-effects meta-analyses for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. A noninformative prior probability was used for the effect, and an evidence-based weakly informative prior probability was used for heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs), 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and probability of noninferiority were calculated using a prespecified upper bound of 1.25 or less. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day all-cause mortality. Results: Four eligible RCTs contributed 3729 patients in the ITT population (1912 women [51.3%]; median age range, 67-79 years) and 3126 in the PP population. In the ITT analysis, within 90 days, 226 patients (12.8%) receiving 7 days of antibiotics died compared with 253 (13.7%) receiving 14 days, corresponding to an RR for 90-day mortality of 0.91 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.22) and a 97.8% probability of noninferiority. In the PP analysis, the RR was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.68-1.32), corresponding to a 95.1% probability of noninferiority. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with Gram-negative bloodstream infections and adequate source control, 7 days of antibiotic therapy had a high probability of being noninferior to 14 days. These findings support a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy for appropriately selected patients like those in the included RCTs.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.018
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations20
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207